Preamble

The House met at a Quarter before Three of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.

PRIVATE BILLS [Lords] (Petition for additional Provision) (Standing Orders not complied with).

Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That, in the case of the Petition for additional Provision in the following Bill, originating in the Lords, the Standing Orders have not been complied with, namely:—

Mid-Glamorgan Water Board Bill [Lords].

Report referred to the Select Committee on Standing Orders.

Leicester Corporation Bill,

Read the Third time, and passed.

Nottinghamshire County Council (Gunthorpe Bridge) Bill,

As amended, considered; to be read the Third time.

Dundee Harbour and Tay Ferries Order Confirmation Bill,

Considered; read the Third time, and passed.

Oral Answers to Questions — BREAD (PRICE).

Mr. HERBERT WILLIAMS: 1.
asked the President of the Board of Trade if he is examining the effect on bread prices of the recent fall in the price of wheat?

The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of TRADE (Sir Philip Cunliffe-Lister): Yes, Sir. I am glad to see that the recent fall in the price of wheat is already reflected in the price of bread.

Oral Answers to Questions — RUSSIAN BACON.

Mr. HARDIE: 2.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware of any shipment of bacon from Russia to London, and can he say whether delivery was accepted or refused?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I am informed that some 230 tone of bacon were shipped from Russia to London in the course of November, December, and January last, and that delivery of these consignments was accepted.

Oral Answers to Questions — SAFEGUARDING OF INDUSTRIES.

Mr. DENNISON: 3.
asked the President of the Board of Trade if any steel manufacturers have made application to be considered under the provisions of the Safeguarding of Industries Act: if so, will he give the names of the applicants; and whether, having regard to the fact that the workpeople in this industry have to depend on its welfare for their existence, ample and timely opportunity will be afforded the workpeople's organisation to give evidence prior to the Committee making a recommendation?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: In answer to the first and second parts of the question, I would refer the hon. Member to the answer which I gave to the hon. Member for West Middlesbrough (Mr. T. Thomson) and others on the 17th March, of which I am sending him a copy. As regards the last part of the question, public announcements will be made of all applications referred to committees, so that all organisations and persons desiring to tender relevant evidence may have the opportunity of doing so.

Mr. DENNISON: Can the right hon. Gentleman give some idea as to how much time will be allowed them for doing so?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I think there will be ample time.

Mr. DENNISON: Could we not have a more definite reply saying what number of days will be available?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: It will certainly be four to six days. In a matter like that of steel, where certainly, from what I know, and I think the hon. Member will bear me out, employers and
employed in the trade are in very close relations, I do not think that any difficulty on that account will arise.

Mr. LEES SMITH: 7.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether the Board will help opponents of an application for protection under the Safeguarding of Industries Acts with information that is available to or can be obtained by the Board?

Sir P. CUNLIFFIE-LISTER: I shall be prepared to consider any request for assistance of this nature either by applicants or opponents in any particular case.

Mr. SMITH: 10.
also asked the President of the Board of Trade whether merchants will be permitted to give evidence or to oppose applications under the Safeguarding of Industries Act?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: Yes, Sir, so far as their evidence or their opposition is relevant to the particular matters referred to the Committees.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: 8.
asked the President of the Board of Trade the number of photographic cameras imported during the years 1922 and 1923; and the amount of duty collected under the Safeguarding of Industries Act upon the same?

The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Guinness): The numbers of photographic cameras imported during the years 1922 and 1923 Were 281,797 and 396,973 respectively. The bulk of the importations are corsigned from Canada, and are exempt, under Section 1 (3) of the Safeguarding of Industries Act, from the charge of Key Industry Duty as of Empire manufacture. I regret that it is not possible to furnish the amounts of duty collected on those importations.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: Will not the new Act necessitate a special application if these Canadian cameras are to be kept out?

Oral Answers to Questions — GERMAN-BUILT BRITISH SHIPS.

Mr. NUTTALL: 4.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether the materials to be used in the building of ships for English account in Germany for
sailing under the British flag will be inspected and passed by the official surveyors of the British Board of Trade?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: No application has been made to the Board of Trade for the inspection of material to be used in ships building in Germany for English account, and no such application is expected.

Oral Answers to Questions — LINOLEUM (SWISS CUSTOMS DUTY).

Mr. T. KENNEDY: 6.
asked the President of the Board of Trade if he is aware that the Swiss Customs duty on plain and printed linoleums and floorcloth is about to be increased from 30 francs per 100 kilos to 50 francs and the duty on inlaid and granite linoleums from 45 to 70 francs; if he is aware that such an increase would practically stop the export of British linoleum to Switzerland; and if any steps can be taken to secure a reduction of the duties mentioned?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: The proposed new duties to which the hon. Member refers are contained in a Bill for the general revision of the Swiss Tariff, a translation of which was published in the "Board of Trade Journal" for the 19th March. I understand that the new Tariff is likely to be materially modified by Commercial Treaties between Switzerland and other countries, and it is not expected that it will come into force, even in a modified form, for at least two years. I have already received representations against the proposals as affecting linoleum and other goods, and these representations will receive careful consideration in connection with any action which it may be possible to take when a suitable opportunity occurs.

Oral Answers to Questions — SUPERPHOSPHATE.

Mr. FENBY: 9.
asked the President of the Board of Trade if lie is aware that superphosphate is a necessary raw material of the agricultural industry; if he can state the amount of this commodity imported into this country during the last year; and on which of the grounds set out in the instructions to committees under the terms of the White Paper of 3rd February, 1925; the Fertiliser Manufacturers' Association were able to make out a prima facie case for investigation?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I am aware of the importance of the commodity in question to agriculture, and I understand that the Committee of Inquiry is to take evidence from the National Farmers' Union as representing that industry. The imports of superphosphate in 1924 amounted to 115,744 tons. As regards the last part of the question, the applicants fulfilled all the conditions necessary under the White Paper for establishing a prima facie case.

Captain WEDGWOOD BENN: Is a duty on superphosphate part of the new agricultural policy of the Government?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I am waiting to see.

Oral Answers to Questions — BRITISH ARMY.

POISON GAS EXPERIMENTS.

Mr. DUNNICO: 11.
asked the Secretary of State for War whether, with regard to the fact that at the camp of the chemical warfare research department at Salisbury Plain experiments are being carried out to test the relative effects of poison gas on soldiers, he will say whether any men subjected to these tests have been seriously and permanently injured in their lungs and otherwise; and whether he is prepared to put a stop to such experiments?

The SECRETARY of STATE for WAR (Sir Laming Worthington-Evans): No men have suffered injury to their lungs or otherwise through being subjected to these tests. The answer to the second part of the question is in the negative.

Mr. AMMON: Does the right hon. Baronet deny the accuracy of the statement which was made on the 21st March to the effect that numbers of young men have been permanently injured in their lungs?

Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: I have not seen the statement referred to, and am obliged to the hon. Gentleman for calling my attention to it.

Mr. AMMON: 14.
asked the Secretary of State for War, with regard to the experiments as to the effect of poison gases on young soldiers which are conducted at the chemical warfare research department, the number of such
experiments, and the number of young soldiers engaged in them, since 1918?

Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: The number of such experiments since 1918 is 372, and the number of soldiers engaged in them 188. All these soldiers voluntarily offered themselves for this special duty.

Mr. MACKINDER: Do these soldiers receive any extra pay-in respect of the risk which they undoubtedly run?

Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: Yes, Sir, they do.

Mr. AMMON: 15.
asked the Secretary of State for War the nature of the experiments conducted at the Chemical Warfare Research Department by subjecting young soldiers to the effects of poison gases; what precautions are taken to prevent such experiments resulting in injury to the young soldiers concerned; and the number of young soldiers who have been injured in their lungs and otherwise since 1918?

Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: The experiments fall under three categories:—
(1) Exposure to low concentration of gases to ascertain their physiological properties.
(2) Exposure to gas of personnel protected by respirators in order to test the protective efficiency of the respirators.
(3) Tests on skin of human personnel of new compounds to ascertain their irritant action, if any.
All such experiments have been carried out under most stringent regulations, which have been framed on the best medical advice obtainable, in order that the health of the observers concerned may be safeguarded. There have been no cases in which injury to the lungs or otherwise has been caused to soldiers since 1918.

Mr. MONTAGUE: Can the Minister say what are the psychological effects of these gases?

Sir L. WORTHINGTON - EVANS: That is a question of which I should certainly like to have notice.

DEFENCE WORKS, ABERDEEN.

Mr. ROSE: 12.
asked the Secretary of State for War if he has arrived at any decision in respect to the abandonment
of the defence works on the beach at Aberdeen; and whether he is aware that the Aberdeen civic authorities are desirous of utilising the site for improvements and that strong local feeling exists in that city in respect to existing buildings, which are regarded as obsolete and an impediment to the development of its local amenities?

Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: The interest of the Aberdeen Town Council is realised, but no decision has yet been arrived at which would permit of the site of this battery being surrendered.

Mr. ROSE: Can the right hon. Gentleman tell us when a decision is likely to be arrived at, seeing that a decision within six months was promised more than six months ago? May I ask whether the right hon. Gentleman and his Department are likely to come to any decision, or whether the matter is still under consideration, and when it will be settled?

Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: I do not think that I personally made any statement six months ago on the subject, but the matter is still under consideration.

Mr. NEIL MACLEAN: Are we to understand that there is not continuity in the policy of the Government?

Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: In some matters.

WOOLWICH ARSENAL (DISCHARGES).

Mr. SNELL: 16.
asked the Secretary of State for War the number of men of over 60 and 65 years of age, respectively, of more than 20 years' service, who have been discharged without pension from the Royal Arsenal, Woolwich, from the date of the Armistice to the 31st December last?

Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: The total numbers of men (1) between 60 and 65 years of age, and (2) over 65 years of age, with more than 20 years' service, who have been discharged without pension during the period in question, are 1,370 and 326, respectively. All of these received a gratuity on discharge.

MAJOR C. A. ADAM.

Mr. RUNCIMAN: 18.
asked the Secretary or State for War whether Major C. A. Adam, 5th Lancers, formerly a
Member of this House, who was condemned by the Army Council for a violation of the King's Regulations for the Army, was condemned upon evidence, whether that 'evidence was disclosed to him; whether he was given an opportunity of being heard in his defence; and whether the colonel-in-chief of the 5th Lancers, Field-Marshal Viscount Allenby, has made any formal or informal request to have the case of Major Adam reconsidered?

Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: The complaints of Major Adam have been examined by successive War Ministers, and each in turn formed the conclusion that his allegations of wrongful treatment were unfounded. I share their view. As regards the last part of the question, Major Adam, in the course of 1921 and 1922, addressed several letters to Lord Allenby on the subject of his case, and Lord Allenby forwarded them for the consideration of the Army Council, as Major Adam asked him to do, but did not make any recommendation.

EXECUTIONS (MILITARY OFFENCES).

Mr. THURTLE: 20.
asked the Secretary of State for War the number of Australian troops executed for military offences during the late War?

Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: No Australian troops were executed for military offences.

Mr. THURTLE: 21.
asked the Secretary of State for War the number of Canadian, and New Zealand troops, respectively, who were executed for military offences during the late War?

Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: Of the Canadian troops 25, and of the New Zealand troops 5 were executed for military offences.

Mr. THURTLE: 22.
asked the Secretary of State for War how many executions there were during the late War in connection with the offences defined in paragraphs (e), (f) and (j) of Section 6 of the Army and Air Force (Annual) Bill?

Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: The executions during the late War in connection with the offences defined in
paragraphs (e), (f) and (j) of Section 6 of the Army Act were:

Paragraph (e)
…
…
None.


Paragraph (f)
…
…
2


Paragraph (j)
…
…
None.

In one of the cases under (f) there were two charges; one for murder and one for an offence under (f). The accused was sentenced to death in respect of convictions on both charges. In the other case, two charges of desertion on active service were joined with a charge under (f). The sentence of death was awarded in respect of convictions on all three charges.

Oral Answers to Questions — SCOTLAND.

SEA FISHERIES.

Major Sir ARCHIBALD SINCLAIR: 26.
asked the Secretary for Scotland whether his attention has been drawn to the Report on Sea Fisheries for the years 1919 to 1923 issued by the Ministry of Agriculture; whether he is aware that the valuable information contained in this Report relates almost entirely to English fisheries; and whether he will issue a similar Report giving corresponding information about the Scottish fisheries?

Captain ELLIOT: The reply to the first two parts of the question is in the affirmative. Full information about the Scottish fisheries is published year by year in the Annual Reports of the Fishery Board for Scotland, and in the circumstances my right hon. Friend sees no necessity for a further Report covering the same period.

PUBLIC ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS.

Sir ROBERT HUTCHISON: 24 and 25.
asked the Secretary for Scotland (1) how many girls of over 11 years of age there are in average attendance in urban and rural public elementary schools in Scotland, respectively; and how many of these in urban and rural schools are receiving instruction in domestic subjects, in accordance with Regulations;
(2) how many boys of over 11 years of age are there in average attendance in urban and rural public elementary schools in Scotland, respectively; and how many of these in urban and rural schools are receiving instruction in handicraft, in accordance with Regulations?

Captain ELLIOT (Parliamentary Under-Secretary for Health, Scotland): These two questions involve a number of figures, and, with the hon. Member's permission, I will circulate the information in the OFFICIAL REPORT. It is not possible to separate further the figures for urban and rural public schools.

Following is the information:


Number of pupils receiving instruction in practical subjects in primary schools in Scotland during year ended 31st July, 1924:


—
Scheduled Burghs.
Counties.
Total.


Estimated number of scholars on roll of 11 years of age and over:.





Boys
42,592
76,296
118,888


Girls
42,910
74,022
116,932


Number receiving instruction in:





Cookery
18,404
32,671
51,075


Laundrywork
12,999
16,299
29,298


Dressmaking
13,547
7,985
21,532


Millinery
—
149
149


Housewifery
3,774
6,473
10,247


Dairying
—
28
28


Poultry-keeping
—
70
70


Science
9,837
23,533
33,370


Mechanics
62
773
835


Benchwork
19,770
27,388
47,158


Agriculture
—
230
230


Gardening
244
8,022
8,266


Navigation and Seamanship.
263
871
1,134

PIERS AND HARBOURS.

Sir A. SINCLAIR: 27.
asked the Secretary for Scotland whether he is aware that several important little harbours round the North and East Coasts of Scotland are falling rapidly into decay, and that the livelihood of many fishing communities is thereby threatened; and whether he proposes to institute a survey of these harbours and to undertake a programme of repair work?

Captain ELLIOT: The responsibility for maintaining such harbours rests on the authorities in whom they are vested, but, in the case of a scheme of improvement which would be beneficial to the fishing or other industry, it is open to
the authority to apply, through the usual channels, for a Grant-in-Aid. In the circumstances, my right hon. Friend does not propose to institute such a survey as is suggested in the question.

Sir A. SINCLAIR: Is not the hon. and gallant Gentleman aware that in many cases it is not known in what authority these harbours are vested, that sometimes the land has gone back to the owner, and that there is a real need for taking these harbours in a certain order and making a certain programme for dealing with the whole of them, since otherwise they will fall into complete decay?

Captain ELLIOT: That seems to be a different question from the one on the Paper. It suggests that we should inquire into the ownership in which the harbours are vested, and I should require notice of such a question.

Sir A. SINCLAIR: It is with a view to repairing them.

Mr. MacKENZIE LIVINGSTONE: 35.
asked the Secretary for Scotland the number of piers that have been closed in the West Highlands and Islands since 1914?

Captain ELLIOT: So far as my right hon. Friend is aware, only two piers, Lochboisdale Pier, South Uist, and Easdale Pier, Argyll, have been closed to all traffic in the Western Highlands and Islands since 1914.

Mr. EVERARD: Will the hon. Gentleman consider reducing the number of piers so that the answer to this question may have a little variation week by week?

HOUSING SUBSIDY.

Mr. WESTWOOD: 29.
asked the Secretary for Scotland what authorities in Scotland are offering the minimum lump sum subsidy to private builders building houses under the 1923 Housing Act; what authorities pay more than the minimum; and what is the sum they are paying?

Captain ELLIOT: As the answer involves a long tabular statement, I propose, with the hon. Member's permission, to circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the answer:

It is not possible to frame the reply precisely in terms of the question, because the present value of the Government contribution of £6 per annum for 20 years varies according to the rate of interest at which a local authority is able to borrow the capital required to pay the subsidy in a lump sum. A list follows showing the local authorities in Scotland that have adopted schemes for the assistance of private enterprise under the Housing, Etc., Act, 1923, and the lump sum subsidy offered in each case. It may be assumed that those local authorities who are offering less than £80 per house are not making any addition to the estimated present value of the Government contribution.

LIST OF LOCAL AUTHORITIES in Scotland that have adopted schemes for the assistance of private enterprise under the Housing, Etc., Act, 1923, showing amount of lump sum subsidy offered in each case.

Local Authority.
Subsidy, per House.


BURGHS:
£
s.
d.


Aberdeen
100
0
0


Aberlour
100
0
0


Airdrie
100
0
0


Alloa
78
1
0


Alva
74
15
0


Alyth
100
0
0


Annan
From £82 to £100*


Anstruther-Easter
75
0
0


Arbroath
78
0
0


Ardrossan
120
0
0


Armadale
From £78 1s.to£100*


Ayr
100
0
0


Banchory
100
0
0


Banff
100
0
0


Barrhead
100
0
0


Bathgate
100
0
0


Blairgowrie
75
0
0


Bo'ness
76
18
6


Bonnyrigg
75
0
0


Brechin
78
0
0


Bridge of Allan
100
0
0


Buckhaven
From £78 to £110*


Buckie
100
0
0


Burntisland
100
0
0


Callander
From £90 to £110*


Campbeltown
100
0
0


Castle Douglas
100
0
0


Coatbridge
100
0
0


Cockenzie
From £80 to £85*


Cowdenbeath
From £80 to £100*


Crail
75
0
0


Cromarty
75
0
0


Cumnock
From £30 to £90*


Dalbeattie
95
0
0


Dalkeith
75
0
0


Denny
From £100 to £120*


Dingwall
76
7
8


Dollar
78
1
0


Dufftown
75
0
0


Dumbarton
100
0
0


Dumfries
From £75 to £100†

Local Authority.
Subsidy. per House.


Burghs—cont.
£
s.
d.


Dunbar
90
0
0


Dunblane
From £80 to £125*


Dundee
125
0
0


Dunfermline
100
0
0


Dunoon
From £100 to £120*


Duns
From £80 to £100*


Dysart
100
0
0


East Linton
90
0
0


Edinburgh
From £85 to £150*


Elgin
100
0
0


Eyemouth
80
0
0


Falkirk
From £100 to £120*


Forfar
80
0
0


Forres
75
0
0


Fortrose
76
0
0


Fort William
76
18
4


Galashiels
From £75 to £100*


Galston
78
1
0


Girvan
100
0
0


Glasgow
From £100 to £140*


Gourock
100
0
0


Grangemouth
From £75 to £100*


Greenock
100
0
0


Haddington
From £80 to £90*


Hamilton
85
0
0


Hawick
100
0
0


Helensburgh
From £78 to £100*


Huntly
100
0
0


Inverbervie
120
0
0


Inverkeithing
76
7
8


Inverness
From £90 to £110*


Inverurie
100
0
0


Irvine
100
0
0


Jedburgh
From £85 to £100*


Johnstone
100
0
0


Keith
145
0
0


Kelso
From £80 to £120*


Kilmarnock
From £90 to £100*


Kilsyth
100
0
0


Kilwinning.
100
0
0


Kinross
77
0
0


Kirkcaldy
100
0
0


Kirkcudbright
100
0
0


Kirkintilloch
75
0
0


Kirkwall
80
0
0


Lanark
82
0
0


Langholm
82
0
0


Largs
100
0
0


Laurencekirk
75
0
0


Leslie
100
0
0


Leven
From £80 to £125*


Linlithgow
100
0
0


Loanhead
75
0
0


Lochgelly
100
0
0


Lockerbie
82
0
0


Lossiemouth
90
0
0


Macduff
100
0
0


Maxwelltown
100
0
0


Maybole
100
0
0


Milngavie
80
0
0


Moffat
100
0
0


Monifieth
100
0
0


Montrose
100
0
0


Motherwell.
125
0
0


Musselburgh.
From £75 to £100*


Newburgh
100
0
0


New Galloway
100
0
0


Newport
75
0
0


Newton-Stewart
100
0
0


North Berwich
From £85 to £150*


Oban
100
0
0


Old Meldrum
From £90 to £100*

Local Authority.
Subsidy, per House.


BURGHS—cont.
£
s.
d.


Paisley
100
0
0


Peebles
100
0
0


Perth
From £100 to £130‡


Peterhead
78
11
7


Pittenweem
73
0
0


Port-Glasgow
100
0
0


Prestonpans
From £90 to £100*


Prestwick
100
0
0


Rattray
75
0
0


Renfrew
100
0
0


Rosehearty
75
0
0


Rothesay
100
0
0


Rutherglen
100
0
0


St. Andrews
80
0
0


Saltcoats
120
0
0


Selkirk
78
11
7


Stewarton
100
0
0


Stirling
100
0
0


Stonehaven
78
0
0


Stranraer
100
0
0


Stromness
From £78 to £82*


Tain
From £90 to £100*


Tayport
74
15
0


Thurso
80
0
0


Tillicoultry
78
0
0


Tobermory
80
0
0


Tranent
From £80 to £90*


Troon
100
0
0


Turriff
100
0
0


Whitburn
78
0
0


COUNTIES:





Aberdeen County:





Districts:





Aberdeen
From £75 to £100*


Deer
100
0
0


Deeside
From £90 to £100


Ellon
From £90 to £100*


Garioch
From £90 to £100*


Huntly
From £90 to £100*


Turriff
100
0
0


Argyll County:





Districts:





Ardnamuchan
76
18
4


Cowal
100
0
0


Kintyre
100
0
0


Lorn
77
0
0


Mid Argyll
120
0
0


Ayr County:





Districts:





Ayr
100
0
0


Carrick
100
0
0


Kilmarnock
100
0
0


Northern
100
0
0


Banff County:





Districts:





Banff
75
0
0


Keith
75
0
0


Berwich County:





Districts:





East
From £80 to £120*


West
From £100 to £120*


Bute County:





Districts:





Arran
100
0
0


Bute
100
0
0


Caithness County
80
0
0


Clackmannan County
78
1
0

Local Authority.
Subsidy, per House.


COUNTIES—cont.
£
s.
d.


Dumbarton County:





Districts:





Eastern
100
0
0


Western
100
0
0


Dumfries County.
From £82 to £100*


Districts:

§



Annan.





Dumfries





Langholm





Lockerbie





Thornhill





Edinburgh, County
75
0
0§


Districts:





Calder.





Gala Water.





Lass wade





Forfar County:





Districts:





Brechin
76
7
8


Dundee
90
0
0


Fife County:





Districts:





Cupar
From £80 to £100*


Dunfermline
From £80 to £100*


Kirkcaldy
From £80 to £100*


St. Andrews
80
0
0


Haddington County:





Western District
From £80 to £100*


Inverness County:





Districts:





Inverness
76
18
6


Aird
76
18
6


Lochaber
76
18
4


Harris
80
0
0


Kincardine County:





Districts:





Laurencekirk
75
0
0


Lower Deeside
100
0
0


Stonehaven
120
0
0


Upper Deeside
100
0
0


Kirkcudbright County:





Districts:





Eastern
100
0
0


Northern
100
0
0


Southern
100
0
0


Western District
100
0
0


Lanark County:





Districts:





Lower Ward.
100
0
0


Upper Ward
82
0
0


Middle Ward
100
0
0


Linlithgow County:





Districts:





Bathgate
From £7 to £100*


Linlithgow
78
0
0


Moray County
75
0
0


Orkney County:





Districts:





Mainland
78
0
0


No. Isles
78
0
0


Walls.
78
0
0


Peebles County
100
0
0

Local Authority.
Subsidy, per House


COUNTIES—cont.
£
s.
d.


Perth County:





Districts:





Eastern
75
0
0


Central
From £85 to £150*


Highland
From £80 to £120*


Western
Prom £80 to £125*


Perth
From £80 to £150*


Benfrew County:





Districts:





Upper
100
0
0


Lower
100
0
0


Ross and Cromarty County:





Districts:





Black Isle
760
0
0


Easter Ross
From £90 to £100*


Mid Ross
From £90 to £100*


South Western
From £76 to £84*


Western
81
10
0


Roxburgh County:





Districts:





Hawick
80
0
0


Jedburgh
80
0
0


Kelso
80
0
0


Liddesdale
80
0
0


Melrose
80
0
0


Selkirk County.
76
18
4


Stirling County:





Districts:





Central
100
0
0


Eastern
100
0
0


Western
100
0
0


Wigtown County:





(Up.) Rhinns District
100
0
0


Zetland County:





Mainland District
74
15
0


*According to size of house.


†According to construction.


‡ According to cost of house.


§Uniform in all districts.

GALA WATER (HOUSING).

Mr. WESTWOOD: 30.
asked the Secretary for Scotland if he has now completed his investigations into the demand for housing accommodation in the Gala Water district of Midlothian; and, if so, will he state what action he proposes to take to get the local authority to meet that demand?

Captain ELLIOT: The answer to the first part of the question is in the negative. The inquiries are, in the first instance, being undertaken by the local authority and investigation is not yet completed.

STEAMSHIP SERVICE, WESTERN ISLES.

Mr. WESTNOOD: 31.
asked the Secretary for Scotland if he is aware of the unsatisfactory steamer service between Oban and the island of Barra; that the
Royal Mail Steamship "Cygnet" is unfitted for the outer islands service; that she failed to put in an appearance at Barra on the 15th and 22nd November and the 5th and 12th December of the year 1924; that the islanders have lost count of the number of times she has failed to do the trip in January of this year; if he is aware of the serious loss this entails upon the islanders; and what action, if any, does he propose to take to provide a satisfactory, efficient and reliable steamship service between the mainland and the outer islands?

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: Before this question is answered, may I point out that this question has been asked in almost the same terms by my hon. Friend the Member for the Western Isles (Mr. MacKenzie Livingstone)? Is there any protection against this conduct on the part of hon. Members?

Mr. WESTWOOD: I had no idea that it had been asked by any other hon. Member; on the knowledge I have in connection with the bad service, I have asked the question.

Mr. SPEAKER: I was not aware that the question had been asked before.

Captain ELLIOT: The itinerary of the steamship "Cygnet" includes three calls each week at Castlebay, Barra. My right hon. Friend is informed that she failed to call at Castelbay on the 14th and 21st of November, and on the 5th and 12th of December, 1924. During January of this year she failed to call at Castlebay on one occasion, and on three other occasions in that month she was storm-bound at Castlebay itself for 36 hours or more. These interruptions of the service were due to heavy gales, but during February there was no interruption of the service to Barra. My right hon. Friends the Secretary for Scotland and the Postmaster-General are giving careful consideration to the question of the steamer services between the mainland and the islands.

Mr. WESTWOOD: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the steamship "Cygnet" was not built for outer-Islands Service, and that the interruption of the service was not so much the weather but her unseaworthiness to carry through the work?

Captain ELLIOT: The Secretary for Scotland and the Postmaster-General are giving serious consideration to the question of the service.

Mr. LIVINGSTONE: Will the hon. Gentleman make it quite clear that this question has been raised repeatedly, both privately and publicly?

Major COLFOX: Does the hon. Gentle, man consider that it is the duty of the Government to provide shipping facilities between different parts of the country?

AGRICULTURAL HOLDINGS.

Mr. T. KENNEDY: 32.
asked the Secretary for Scotland the acreage of Scottish land under cultivation in 1874 and 1924, respectively, with the number of agricultural holdings of 100 acres or more, and the number under 100 acres in the two years mentioned?

Captain ELLIOT: In 1874 agricultural holdings in Scotland were not classified into size groups. I therefore give figures for 1875. The total area under crops and grass in Scotland in 1875 was 4,611,095 acres, and in 1924 4,715,290 acres. In 1875 there were 66,189 holdings in Scotland exceeding one but not exceeding 100 acres in size, and 14,607 holdings over 100 acres. The corresponding figures for 1924 were 60,728 and 15,482, respectively.

GRAZINGS, FORSINARD.

Mr. JOHNSTON: 33.
asked the Secretary for Scotland whether he has had repeated applications from smallholders at Halladale, Forsinard, for an allocation of grazings on the sheep farm of Forsinard; and what steps he proposes to take to see that adequate grazings are made available?

Captain ELLIOT: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. As stated in a reply given on the 12th June, 1923, to the hon. and gallant Member for Caithness and Sutherland, it is not practicable to meet the desire of the smallholders, since the land which they wish to have for enlargements is at present occupied on lease by six small tenants whose average rental only amounts to about £28.

NURSERY SCHOOL, DUNDEE.

Mr. JOHNSTON: 34.
asked the Secretary for Scotland whether the Scottish
Education Department has yet considered the appeal made by the Dundee Nursery School Committee that the Department should encourage and assist the Dundee Education Authority to save the nursery school in Dundee from extinction?

Captain ELLIOT: Yes, Sir. The appeal referred to in the question has been carefully considered, and I am sending the hon. Member a copy of the answer which the Department have addressed to the Committee.

Mr. JOHNSTON: Will the hon. Gentleman say whether the answer is in the affirmative?

Captain ELLIOT: I always understood that "Yes" was an answer in the affirmative.

Mr. JOHNSTON: May I point out that the hon. Member did not say whether he had acceded to the, appeal or not; but simply that, he had sent a reply.

Captain ELLIOT: I am asked whether I have considered the appeal.

Mr. JOHNSTON: The second part of the question asks whether he will encourage and assist.

Captain ELLIOT: There is only one part of this question, which asks whether I have considered the appeal that the Department should encourage and assist.

Mr. SCRYMGEOUR: May we take it that the hon. Member has answered that the Department cannot give such a grant, and that the matter rests entirely with the local authority?

Captain ELLIOT: I am circulating the full answer. Perhaps the matter will be best considered when the hon. Member has seen the answer.

Oral Answers to Questions — COAL INDUSTRY.

PITS (CLOSING DOWN).

Mr. WHITELEY: 30.
asked the Secretary for Mines whether he is aware that the Dunstan Colliery Company, Durham, has been closed down recently; and what was the total amount of local rates paid by the owners of the colliery during the year prior to its closing down?

The SECRETARY for MINES (Colonel Lane-Fox): One pit belonging to Messrs. Dunston Garesfield Limited, was closed about a year ago, a second closed this month, a third is still open. I am unable to supply the information asked for in the latter part of the hon. Member's question, but I have communicated with my right hon. Friend the Minister of Health, who will make inquiries and inform him of the result.

Mr. WHITELEY: Can the hon. and gallant Gentleman say whether, in regard to the two pits closed down, the owners are paying local rates?

Colonel LANE-FOX: I cannot remember the position, but I should think not.

Mr. LOUGHER: 42.
asked the Secretary for Mines whether his attention has been called to the closing down of pits at Blaenavon, whereby 2,500 workers will be rendered unemployed and 15,000 people at Blaenavon affected; and whether he will give Returns showing the number of pits closed down since the 1st June last year up to the present time?

Colonel LANE-FOX: Yes, Sir. I am aware that one pit at Blaenavon was closed last December and three other pits, normally giving employment to about 2,200 men, closed last week. The number of pits in Great Britain closed since 1st June, 1924, is 351, normally employing 70,800 wage-earners, and the number of pits opened or reopened in the same period is 99, at present employing 9,000 wage-earners.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Is not this closing, of the pits due very largely to our system of levying rates upon pits while they are open, and ceasing to levy rates as soon as they are closed?

Colonel LANE-FOX: I would not say "very largely."

Mr. GRIFFITHS: When the Blaenavon pits were closed down some months ago, the Secretary for Mines sent down a representative from his Department to investigate, and ultimately the pits were restarted. Will he adopt a similar course to this case? The pits are in my constituency, and that is how I know.

Colonel LANE-FOX: I will be very glad to inquire. Inquiries which have already
been made show that the pits had been working apparently at a very heavy loss indeed.

Mr. GRIFFITHS: Will the right hon. Gentleman make another investigation?

Colonel LANE-FOX: I will inquire.

Mr. HARTSHORN: Is any immediate action contemplated on the part of the Government having regard to the deplorable state of things in the mining industry, or is it the intention of the Government to allow things to develop until the country is overtaken by irreparable disaster? We ought to know whether the Government intend to do anything.

Mr. SPEAKER: That does not arise on this question.

ANTHRACITE MINES.

Mr. WARDLAW-MILNE: 41.
asked the Secretary for Mines whether the conditions governing the working of the anthracite mines in the United States are similar to those of the mines in this country in regard to the thickness of seams and the average depth at which working takes place; and what the comparative figures are in output per man employed in the two countries?

Colonel LANE-FOX: No, Sir; they are quite different. The American seams are much thicker and more easily worked. The output per worker in 1923 (the latest date for which an American figure is available) was 528 tons in the United States and 188 tons in South Wales.

Mr. WARDLAW-MILNE: Can the hon. and gallant Gentleman say whether, apart from the thickness of the seams, the depth at which the working takes place is similar in this country and in the United States?

Colonel LANE-FOX: The conditions are so very different that it is difficult to answer that question. In the American seams the gradients are very different. In some cases the seams are, as it were, standing on their head. It is, therefore, impossible accurately to compare depth, but, on the whole, the workings in South Wales are deeper.

Mr. HARTSHORN: Can the hon. and gallant Gentleman say to what extent coal in the anthracite collieries in the
United States is produced by machinery and to what extent the same thing is done in this country?

Colonel LANE-FOX: It would be very difficult to answer that question without notice.

Mr. LAWSON: Is the hon. and gallant Gentleman aware that not only in the United States but in the Dominions they are always ready to take our miners when they can get them, because of their high state of efficiency?

EXPORTS (WAGES LOSS).

Mr. LOUGHER: 43.
asked the Secretary for Mines whether he can give a Return as to the approximate loss in the wages of colliery workers of the United Kingdom caused by the decreased exports of coal to foreign countries for the nine months commencing in June, 1924, until February, 1925, inclusive?

Colonel LANE-FOX: Undoubtedly the industry in general, including the colliery workers, have suffered through the decrease in coal exports, but to make an estimate of the possible amount of such exports and all the circumstances affecting them such as my hon. Friend asks, would necessitate so many unreliable assumptions that I fear the result would be of little value.

Mr. BATEY: Has the right hon. Gentleman formed any idea as to what is the cause of the decrease in the exports?

Colonel LANE-FOX: I have.

Mr. BATEY: Will the right hon. Gentleman tell us what it is?

GERMAN COMPETITION.

Mr. LOUGHER: 44.
asked the Secretary for Mines whether his attention has been called to the announcement that the Cardiff office of the French State Railways is to close down; if he has any information as to what proportion of German coals are now being utilised by the French State Railways compared with pre-War years; and whether he is aware that South Wales coalowners were undercut by German coalowners to the extent of 3s. per ton in the last tender recently put forward by the French State Railways?

Colonel LANE-FOX: I have seen in the Press that the German tender for the supply of coal to the French State Rail
ways was 3s. lower than the South Wales tender, but I have no official information on the subject. I am aware that the Cardiff office is to be closed. I regret that I have not the information for which he asks about the amount of German coal used on these railways, which consume about one-sixth of the total amount of coal consumed on all the French railways.

Mr. HARDIE: In making comparisons between the German coal and the French coal, is it not necessary to consider the fact that in one case you may have as much as 35 per cent. of ash, which would represent nearly half the value, and that you may not be buying coal but may be buying stone? It seems to me that you ought to be in a position to say—

Mr. SPEAKER: I think the hon. Member had better give me notice of that question.

MONTAGU COLLIERY DISASTER.

Mr. WARNE: (by Private Notice) asked the Secretary for Mines whether he can give the House any later information with respect to the disaster at the Montagu Colliery, Northumberland; whether any of the entombed men have yet been rescued; whether, in view of the deplorable loss of life in the mines of this country, his Department has taken more stringent action to secure full compliance with safety Regulations; if so, can he state the nature of this action, and whether he proposes to take further measures for safeguarding the lives of the workers in the mines.

Colonel LANE-FOX: I am sure that the House will have heard with the deepest regret of what I fear must be a very serious disaster. The latest information telephoned from the Divisional Office is to the effect that the water is still rising slowly, and is now 35 feet to 40 feet below the level of the pit bottom. If it reaches the pit bottom, pumping operations will be much more difficult. A large pump is being installed in the pit bottom, and a portable pump will be put to the edge of the water to pump to it.
Thirty-eight men are trapped at present; either one or two other men, originally missing, have escaped. All the old workings that could be got into have been explored this morning. No one was found there, but, as these workings are a long way from the point at which water
broke in, there was little expectation that any would be found. Further exploration can now only be made when the water is lowered.
All possible action is taken to ensure full compliance with safety Regulations, and I will deal fully with this part of the question in the Debate this evening on the Motion of the hon. Member for Wentworth (Mr. Hirst).

Mr. J. RAMSAY MacDONALD: Might we have an opportunity of having the last part of the Minister's statement made quite clear? I understand that an arrangement has been made, very largely by the courtesy and goodness of the hon. Member for Bodmin (Mr. Harrison), to allow the Motion which has the second place on the Paper to-day, dealing with accidents in mines, to be discussed at a quarter-past eight. May I ask the Prime Minister if such an arrangement has been made, and if we may now assume that the debate at a quarter-past eight to-night will be on the second Resolution and not on the first?

The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Baldwin): As far as I understand, the feeling of sympathy on this occasion was so general throughout the House that there was a consensus of opinion that precedence should be given to the Motion to which the Leader of the Opposition has alluded, by allowing it to be moved to-night, and my hon. Friend the Member for Bodmin (Mr. Harrison) at once gave way. I might just, mention here that I understand there is also a general desire—but I do not commit the House to this at all, because it must be discussed through the usual channels—that if there be any procedure which makes it practicable, my hon. Friend the Member for Bodmin, who is raising a question of considerable importance to the part of the country which he represents and to other parts of the country, should not be deprived of the opportunity of moving his Motion.

HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

Mr. WALLHEAD: May I have your permission, Mr. Speaker, to ask the indulgence of the House on this question of the disaster in Northumberland? A few days ago the Members of this House expressed their sympathy with the death of Lord Curzon. I wondered if you would
allow me to ask the House to express its sympathy with the relatives of the men who have lost their lives in this tragic occurrence?

Mr. SPEAKER: I am sure that in this matter the hon. Gentleman has the sympathy of the Whole House. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear!"]

Oral Answers to Questions — UNEMPLOYMENT (NECESSITOUS AREAS).

Mr. TREVELYAN THOMSON: 45.
asked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the considerable increase in unemployment in the heavy iron and steel trade districts, the Government will authorise the Unemployment Grants Committee to increase the percentage grant of financial assistance for any schemes for the relief of unemployment submitted by these areas?

The PRIME MINISTER: As stated in the reply given to the hon. Member for Lincoln on the 18th December last, preference is given by the Unemployment Grants Committee to all schemes which are calculated to promote employment in depressed industries, from whatever part of the country they are submitted. I think that this method of dealing with an admittedly difficult position is much preferable to giving special terms to particular areas, the delimitation of which would in any case present very great difficulties. As regards the general measure of Government assistance to such schemes, the terms have been improved on several occasions and are on a generous scale.

Mr. THOMSON: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that since 18th December the percentage of unemployment has increased considerably in these areas, and, in view of this new factor, is it not possible to increase the percentage allowance to these distressed districts?

The PRIME MINISTER: That shall be looked into, as all these points are being looked into, by those who are charged with dealing with the unemployment problem. I shall ask to have it done.

Oral Answers to Questions — WIDOWS' PENSIONS.

Mr. T. THOMSON: 47.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what steps the
Government propose to take in order to give practical effect to the large consensus of opinion in the House of Commons in favour of widows' pensions?

The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Churchill): I have at present nothing to add to the reply given by the Prime Minister to the hon. Member for the Western Isles on the 16th March.

Captain BENN: Will the Government be in a position on the Motion to-morrow night to make a statement?

Mr. CHURCHILL: A general statement will be made to-morrow night.

Major HORE-BELISHA: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in a publication called "Looking Ahead" a very particular statement was made?

Captain GARRO-JONES: Is there any subject before the House on which the right hon. Gentleman or the Prime Minister can give us a specific statement?

Oral Answers to Questions — INCOME TAX.

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: 49.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the yield of 1d. in the £ Income Tax for each of the last four years?

Mr. CHURCHILL: The estimated yield per 1d. of the Income Tax (excluding Super-tax) is as follows:


Year.
£


1921–22 (United Kingdom)
4,805,000


1922–23 (United Kingdom)
4,916,000


1923–24 (Great Britain and Northern Ireland)
4,880,000


1924–25 (Great Britain and Northern Ireland)
4,880,000

For the first two years these estimates are final: for 1923–24 and 1924–25 they are provisional only.

Mr. SHEPPERSON: 56.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he is aware that a rural landowner who enlarges or reconstructs a house of the cottage class in agricultural areas is not allowed any rebate in his Income Tax for that expenditure; and will he take steps to remedy this?

Mr. CHURCHILL: If my hon. Friend will furnish me with particulars of the case which he has in mind, I will gladly have the matter investigated and wilt
communicate the result to him in due course. At the same time I would invite his attention to Rule 8 of No. 5 in Schedule A of the Income Tax Act, 1918, which, as amended by Section 25 of last year's Finance Act, gives a rural landowner the right to include in his claim to an Income Tax allowance in respect of the cost of maintenance, etc., of his estate, expenditure on additions or improvements to farm or estate cottages provided that no increased rent is payable in respect of the additions or improvements and in so far as they are made in order to comply with the provisions of any Statute or the regulations or bye-laws of a local authority.

Oral Answers to Questions — LOCAL LOANS FUND ACCOUNTS.

Colonel DAY: 48.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if the Local Loans Fund Accounts for the year 1923–24 have been submitted to the Comptroller and Auditor-General for audit; if so, on what date were they submitted; and can he explain the delay?

Mr. CHURCHILL: I understand that these Accounts are being sent to the Comptroller and Auditor-General forthwith, their preparation having been delayed by the necessity of examining the statements of collections for the year furnished by the Governments of Northern Ireland and the Irish Free State in respect of loans from the Fund outstanding in Ireland.

Oral Answers to Questions — LAND VALUES (TAXATION).

Mr. GRIFFITHS: 50.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether his attention has been drawn to a recent sale in the City of London where land realised £60 and £70 per foot; and whether he proposes to introduce legislation for the taxation of land values for revenue purposes in order to enable the nation to derive some advantages from unearned increments obtained from such sources?

Mr. CHURCHILL: I would refer the hon. Member to the answer which I gave to the hon. Member for Govan on the 16th December, of which I am sending him a copy.

Mr. MACLEAN: Will the right hon. Gentleman not refer the hon. Gentleman who asked the question to some of the speeches which he himself made in advocating the Land Budget?

Oral Answers to Questions — GERMAN REPARATION (RECOVERY) ACT.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: 51.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he can state what decision has been made as to the application of the German Reparation (Recovery) Act?

Mr. CHURCHILL: Negotiations with a view to the establishment of an alternative procedure for the collection of the Reparation (Recovery) Act levy have been in progress for some time, and I hope to be in a position to make a definite statement on the subject later in the week.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: Is it proposed to make the German Government responsible for the payments, and not the British merchant, who up to the present has had to pay?

Mr. CHURCHILL: That fact will emerge when the proposals are laid before the House.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: Under the new arrangement is the money going to the -Reparation Account to be sheltered from prior charges, or how is it going to be dealt with?

Mr. CHURCHILL: The whole scheme will be examined when it is laid before Parliament.

Oral Answers to Questions — NORTHERN IRELAND.

SPECIAL CONSTABULARY.

Captain BENN: 52.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the grant of public money under a recent Estimate towards the cost of the Special Constabulary in Northern Ireland was limited by any condition as to the use to which the constabulary should be put?

Mr. CHURCHILL: The grant was voted towards the expenses of the Special Constabulary in Northern Ireland, which is regulation by the Special Constables Act, 1914, as applied by the Constabulary Act (Northern Ireland), 1922. No condi
tions as to the use to which the force should be put are in my opinion necessary or desirable.

CONTRIBUTIONS TO BRITISH TREASURY.

Mr. COMPTON: 55.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if, seeing that under the Government of Ireland Act, 1920, the Government of Northern Ireland is liable to pay to the British Treasury 44 per cent, of £18,000,000 per annum and that in the first four years a sum amounting only to £17,006,465 has been paid, he will state what steps he proposes to take to recover the balance of £14,673,535 due to his Department during this period?

Mr. CHURCHILL: The hon. Member is under a misapprehension as regards the provisions of the Government of Ireland Act, 1920. Under Section 23 of that Act, as amended by paragraph 4 of the First Schedule to the Irish Free State (Consequential Provisions) Act, 1922, the contribution to be made by the Government of Northern Ireland towards Imperial liabilities and expenditure is subject to revision by the Joint Exchequer Board. The contributions specified in the last paragraph of my reply of the 24th March have been made in accordance with the decisions of the Board, and no such balance as is suggested is now due.

Oral Answers to Questions — TAXATION (COLWYN COMMITTEE).

Mr. SANDEMAN ALLEN: 53.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the Colwyn Committee on Taxation is going to issue an interim Report; and, if so, when it may be expected?

Mr. CHURCHILL: I would refer the hon. Member to my reply to the hon. Member for Ilford on the 5th March. I do not. anticipate that the Committee will issue an interim Report.

Oral Answers to Questions — GOVERNMENT PUBLICATIONS (LIBRARIES).

Major CRAWFURD: 54.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether representations as to the disabilities under which libraries suffer, in view of the greatly enhanced cost of Government publications and notwithstanding the concession recently made of a 50 per cent. reduction in price to approved institu
tions, have been received from the Library Association; and whether it is proposed to make any further concesion?

Mr. GUINNESS: The representations referred to have been fully considered, but I regret that I do not see my way to may any further special concession. A new scale of prices for Parliamentary Papers, showing very substantial reductions, has, however, been adopted this year, from which the libraries, as well as other purchasers, will benefit.

Mr. H. WILLIAMS: Has the right hon. Gentleman taken any steps to popularise the sale of Government publications, thus improving the receipts of the Government, and enabling the publications to be sold more cheaply?

Oral Answers to Questions — PENSIONS (INCREASE) ACT (DUBLIN POLICE).

Major HORE-BELISHA: 58.
asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether he is aware that the Government of the Irish Free State has refused to give the benefits of the Pensions (Increase) Act, 1924, to the Dublin Metro politan Police pensioners who benefited under the previous Act; and whether, seeing that the contract of these men was with the British Government., who have always hitherto recognised them as their pensioners, he can see his way to have recommendations made to the Irish Free State Government to give these men the benefit of the increases which have been granted to all other pre-War pensioners, or cause that obligation to be discharged by His Majesty's Government?

Mr. GUINNESS: I understand that the Government of the Irish Free State has decided not to introduce legislation on the lines of the Pensions (Increase) Act, 1924, as regards pensions paid by them. The pensioners in question are receiving the pensions to which they are entitled by Statute, and in these circumstances I do not think that I could properly intervene further in the matter. I am afraid that I have no power to extend the benefits of the Act of 1924 to the Dublin Metropolitan Police.

Major HORE-BELISHA: Will the right hon. Gentleman not consider amending the law in this matter, seeing that these people were our own employés and our own pensioners?

Mr. GUINNESS: It is a difficult subject to deal with by question and answer, but reasons were given by my predecessor, when the Pensions Increase Act was before the House last year, which convinced the majority of the House then that it was inadvisable to deal with them in the way suggested.

Mr. MACPHERSON: Is it not a fact that the pensions of these former loyal servants of the Crown are paid by the Imperial Parliament and that the corresponding police pensioners under this Act in this country have had their pre-War pensions increased? Is it not, therefore, reasonable that these former loyal servants of the Crown should also have their case considered?

Sir JAMES REMNANT: Did not the previous answers say that if they could see their way they would do this, but they did not deny that the understanding which applied at the time of the signing of the Treaty was that these pensions should be put in exactly the same way as if they remained under the British Government, and can the right hon. Gentleman see his way to make representations to that effect to the Free State?

Major HORE-BELISHA: Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that the only reason why they were not legislated for under the past Act was that it was considered that the Free State would discharge its obligations?

Oral Answers to Questions — SOVIET PROPERTY, GREAT BRITAIN (TAXATION).

Commander BELLAIRS: 59.
asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury what house property belonging to the Soviet Government in this country enjoys exemption from taxation?

Mr. GUINNESS: I understand that there is no house property belonging to the Soviet Government in this country which enjoys exemption from Property Tax (Income Tax, Schedule A)—the taxation to which, I assume, the hon. and gallant Member's question is directed.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: Are the buildings of other Powers exempt?

Mr. GUINNESS: Not in the case of leasehold premises, as those occupied by the Soviet Government are.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRANSPORT.

NEW ROADS (DEMOLITION OF HOUSES).

Viscount SANDON: 63.
asked the Minister of Transport how many houses have been pulled down in connection with the new road schemes in the London district and elsewhere; how many of them were built since the War; and how many since 1900; and what provision was made for rehousing their occupants?

The MINISTER of TRANSPORT (Colonel Ashley): I regret that I am not in possession of all the information which my noble Friend requires, and I can only speak for the road schemes in the London district undertaken by my Department, which are rather more than 100 miles in total length. In the case of these schemes the number of houses which it has been found necessary to demolish is 37. I have no knowledge as to the dates at which these premises were originally erected. The number of houses rebuilt or purchased, to provide other accommodation in connection with the same schemes, is 22. The occupants of two houses were rehoused by the freeholders of the properties demolished, and the occupants of two other houses found other accommodation for themselves. In 11 cases the occupants agreed to accept compensation in lieu of the provision of other accommodation.

ROAD FUND (GRANTS).

Mr. HUGH MORRISON: 68.
asked the Minister of Transport what was the actual sum allocated from the Road Fund to unclassified roads in England, Wales and Scotland during the financial year 1924–25; and what sum is it proposed to allocate for similar purposes during the, financial year 1925–26?

Colonel ASHLEY: The actual grants made from the Road Fund in respect of unclassified roads and bridges in England, Wales and Scotland during the financial year 1924–25 will amount approximately to £820,000. I am not yet in a position to state what sum it is proposed to allocate for similar purposes during the financial year 1925–26.

Mr. HURD: Did we not understand from the right hon. Gentleman yesterday that the total amount for the last three years, including this new amount, was to be £5,000,000?

Colonel ASHLEY: If the hon. Member will look at my reply he will see that it deals with the question of the actual sum allocated, and I had to answer as to actual grants. This was because the money allocated for last year was not only for unclassified roads but also for first and second-class roads.

TAXI-CABS, LONDON.

Sir FRANK MEYER: 69.
asked the Minister of Transport, whether he is aware that a number of taxi-cabs plying for hire in the Metropolitan area are below the standard of efficiency and comfort which the public have a right to expect; and whether he is prepared to take steps to ensure that such vehicles be either brought up to a proper standard or taken off the streets?

The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Sir William Joynson-Hicks): I have been asked to reply. A practical test was instituted 18 months ago. It is made annually or at such other times as thought requisite if the efficiency of the engine is open to doubt; and I think the conditions both as to efficiency and comfort are improving.

Sir F. MEYER: If I bring to the right hon. Gentleman's attention specific cases of cabs which are not reaching the required standard of comfort, will he have those cases inquired into?

Sir H. BRITTAIN: Is it not a fact that no city enjoys a better taxi-cab service than does London?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I think that that is right. Of course, if a very special complaint were brought before me I would inquire about it, but I would point out that many of the cabs complained of are cabs owned by ex-service men who have invested all their money in them, and I like to be as lenient as I can in such cases.

Mr. GOODMAN ROBERTS: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that some of the slow moving taxi-cabs impede traffic considerably by crawling along beside the pavement to pick up passengers?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: The question of crawling cabs is a different question.

Oral Answers to Questions — POST OFFICE.

WIRELESS TELEGRAPHY (BIRD PROTECTION).

Mr. T. THOMSON: 70.
asked the Postmaster-General if he is now in a position to state what action the Government propose to take with regard to the complaints made of the destruction of pigeons and other bids by broadcasting wires; whether he is aware that the British Broadcasting Company, Limited, have stated that they have no objection to the placing of corks on aerial wires; and, as offers to supply corks have been made by various bird protection societies, does he propose to do anything in this matter?

The POSTMASTER - GENERAL (Sir W. Mitchell-Thomson): There are now more than 1,300,000 wireless licence holders; and I do not think it would be reasonable or practicable to require them, as a condition of their licences, to affix corks to their aerials. I have been in communication with the National Homing Union, and have suggested to them that they should invite the cooperation of the British Broadcasting Company in giving publicity to appeals on the subject.

FACILITIES (MARTON, SALOP).

Viscount SANDON: 71.
asked the Postmaster-General whether he is aware that hamlets adjacent to Marton, together with that village itself, in the county of Salop, though on a trunk road over which the telegraph wires run, has no free delivery of telegrams, and that 6d. has to be paid on each one, except in the case of one house at either end of the village served by the post offices of the adjoining villages; that no telephone has been laid on, although the guarantee demanded has long since been given and though the telephone wires pass overhead; that there is no outward post between midday on Saturdays and Monday nights; and whether he will take immediate steps to remedy these disabilities which are causing discontent, and against which the local parish council has protested?

Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON: An offer has been made to the Chirbury Parish Council to provide telegraph and telephone facilities at the Marton Post Office if a guarantee is given to defray the deficiency between expenses and revenue for a period of seven years; and it is understood that the parish council will discuss the matter shortly. The circumstances are not such as to warrant provision of the facilities without guarantee. Terms in respect of a telephone call office only were first quoted to the parish council, but they requested that the question of providing both telegraph and telephone facilities should be considered. Since May last the outward despatch of letters from Marton on Saturdays has been made earlier in order to afford the local postman a weekly half-holiday. The parish council acquiesced in the arrangement before it was introduced.

Major COLFOX: Could the right hon. Gentleman not do more than he has done hitherto to assist the provision of telephones in rural areas?

Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON: I am doing all that I can do.

INLAND TELEGRAMS (CHARGES).

Major GLYN: 72.
asked the Postmaster-General whether he is prepared to con Hider such revision of the existing rates charged for the address for inland telegrams as that names of towns consisting of more than one work shall, in all cases, be counted as one word, whether or not the Postal Guide shows such towns as having a hyphen between each word?

Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON: My hon. and gallant Friend seems to be under a misapprehension. The name of any town or village in the Kingdom is already chargeable as one word in the address of an inland telegram, even if the name consists of more than one word; and the use of hyphens in the Post Office Guide has no bearing on the charge in such cases.

Major GLYN: 73.
asked the Postmaster-General whether he will consider the revision of the existing rate charged for addresses of inland telegrams so that the title of the street, square or place shall be counted as one word for purposes of charging, irrespective of the actual number of names that title includes, and
that the word street, square, etc., shall be counted as part of the title, in view of the disadvantage under which residents in houses situated in long-titled localities now suffer?

Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON: I regret I cannot authorise the concession asked for by my hon. and gallant Friend, which would practically amount to charging a uniform charge of two words for the address, irrespective of the number of words which had in fact to be telegraphed.

Sir H. BRITTAIN: Is the hon. Gentleman prepared to consider the suggestion adopted by more than one foreign country, of allowing names and addresses to go free?

WIRELESS TELEGRAPHY AND SIGNALLING BILL.

Commander C. WILLIAMS: 74.
asked the Postmaster-General whether, in accordance with the practice upon Bills which are partly consolidation of existing enactments, he will cause a print to be issued of the Wireless Telegraphy and Signalling Bill, distinguishing those parts of the Bill which re-enact the existing law from those which introduce amendments or new provisions, together with any provisions of the existing enactments which are now proposed to be omitted?

Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON: I am arranging for this to be done.

TELEPHONE SERVICE.

Mr. ALBERY: 75.
asked the Postmaster-General whether, in view of the facts that Great Britain and Northern Ireland have 26 telephones in service per 1,000 inhabitants as against 142 per 1,000 in the United States, and that 11 countries have in use more telephones per 1,000 inhabitants than this country, if he will state what means he is taking to increase telephone efficiency in this country?

Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON: I would refer my hon. Friend to the answer given to the hon. Member for Edge Hill on the 3rd instant. Telephones are at present being installed at the rate of over 17,000 a month.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: 77.
asked the Postmaster-General if he is aware that if a telephone in London
breaks down on a Saturday the subscriber is informed that it cannot be attended to until Monday; and will he arrange to obviate such delay?

Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON: I am aware that faults occurring on telephone circuits during week-ends do not receive attention until Monday except in cases of fire alarm, police, hospital and other circuits where it is in the public interest that service should be restored at once. A general extension of the existing emergency arrangements would involve a very heavy additional expenditure which would not be justified.

EXPENDITURE (WAR BONUS AWARDS).

Commander BELLAIRS: 76.
asked the Postmaster-General what has been the increase in the cost of the Post Office services for 1924–25 as the result of the War bonus and other awards beyond the regular rates of pay?

Sir W. MITCHELL - THOMSON: I assume that my hon. and gallant Friend is referring to the arrears of War bonus payable to Post Office servants under the "Sutton" and subsequent judgments in respect of their service in the forces. The total amount, which will be so paid up to 31st instant, cannot yet be stated precisely but will be about £2,000,000.

NAVAL ADDRESSEES ABROAD (POSTAGE RATE).

Lieut.-Colonel GAULT: 79.
asked the Postmaster-General if he will arrange to have letters and parcels addressed to naval personnel, care of the General Post Office, sent forward free of extra charge, as at present those on foreign service are called upon to pay additional postage to the inland rate on parcels directed to them in this way?

Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON: I regret that I am unable to grant this concession. The postage applicable to correspondence for His Majesty's ships outside home waters is the Imperial rate, and the postage on a parcel for one of His Majesty's ships abroad is the same as for an ordinary parcel for the same destination. These rates are generally not more than sufficient to cover the actual costs incurred by the Post Office, but as I promised in my reply to the hon.
Member for the Sutton Division of Plymouth (Viscountess Astor) on the 12th February last I am considering whether some reduction can be made in the postage rates for parcels addressed to certain stations.

Major HORE-BELISHA: Is the hon. Gentleman not aware that a British ship is supposed to be British territory wherever it may be, and therefore should not the inland rate apply to British ships?

Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON: I am fully aware of that fact, and I am also aware that a British Embassy is British territory, but the rate does not apply in that case either.

LONDON TELEPHONE DIRECTORY.

Sir H. BRITTAIN: 82.
asked the Postmaster-General what is the cost of printing and distributing the London Telephone Directory; and what sum is brought in on account of the advertisements therein contained?

Mr. GUINNESS: The cost of printing and distributing the last issue of the London Telephone Directory was approximately £41,500, and the receipts from advertisements approximately £23,450. These figures do not include Stationery Office Departmental expenses.

Sir H. BRITTAIN: Does that include the Business Telephone Directory?

Mr. GUINNESS: I should be obliged for notice of that question

INJURIES CLAIM (GLAsGow).

Mr. HARDIE: 83.
asked the Postmaster-General whether he is aware that a claim for damages has been lodged with the postmaster, Glasgow, on behalf of Mary Jane Devlin, who was injured by a postal van last December; whether he is aware that an answer has been returned to the effect that the Postmaster-General, as an officer of the Crown, is not responsible for the acts of his subordinates; and whether this statement was made on his authority?

Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON: I have not yet had time to receive the necessary information, but I am making inquiries, and will write to the hon. Member.

Oral Answers to Questions — FOOT-AND-MOUTH DISEASE.

Mr. WARDLAW-MILNE: 84.
asked the Minister of Agriculture whether he has considered the advisability of offering a substantial prize for a cure for foot-and-mouth disease, or for the production of a successful serum preventing its spread?

The MINISTER of AGRICULTURE (Mr. Edward Wood): I do not think that research into foot-and-mouth disease would be stimulated by the means suggested in my hon. Friend's question, and I have grave doubts whether the proposed action would be practicable.

The following Statement shows the proportion measured by Value of (a) Raw Materials and Articles mainly unmanufactured, and (b) Articles mainly or wholly manufactured, exported to Foreign Countries and to British Countries Overseas respectively, during the years specified.


Class of goods and Year
Value of Exports of United Kingdom Produce and manufac'ures.


Total to all Destinations.
of which consigned to


Foreign Countries.
British Countries Overseas.
Foreign Countries
British Countries Overseas.



Amount. Thousand £.
Amount. Thousand £.
Amount. Thousand £.
Proportion Per cent.
of Total. Per cent.


(a) Raw Materials and Articles mainly Unmanufactured:







1913
66,173
62,849
3,324
95.0
5.0


1923
130,809
123,014
7,795
94.1
5.9


(b) Articles wholly or mainly Manufactured:







1913
413,820
239,142
174,378
57.9
42.1


1923
579,957
319,613
260,314
55.1
44.9

Similar particulars for 1924 will not be available for some time.

The particulars for 1913 and the first quarter of 1923 relate to exports from Great Britain and Ireland. As from 1st April, 1923, they relate to exports from Great Britain and Northern Ireland only and are inclusive of raw materials, etc., to the value of £2,345,000 and of manufactured goods to the value of £14,267,000, exported to the Irish Free State.

Oral Answers to Questions — BRITISH EMPIRE EXHIBITION (WAGES).

Colonel DAY: 86.
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Overseas Trade Department if he is aware that the low wages paid to many of the employés at Wembley during 1924 caused hardship;

Oral Answers to Questions — EXPORTS (IMPERIAL AND FOREIGN).

Mr. WARDLAW-MILNE: 85.
asked the. Parliamentary Secretary to the Overseas Trade Department what the proportion of our exports to foreign countries and to the British Empire in 1913 and 1924 of raw materials and manufactured goods was, respectively?

Mr. A. M. SAMUEL (Secretary, Overseas Trade Department): The answer contains a table of figures, and the hon. Member will perhaps allow me to circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the answer.

and if he will take every precaution to see that the persons employed at the British Empire Exhibition of 1925 will receive wages that will allow them a proper standard of living?

Mr. SAMUEL: I have no particulars in regard to the wages paid to employés at the British Empire Exhibition in 1924. I have no control over the rates of wages paid at the British Empire Exhibition, but if any case of hardship is brought to my notice by the hon. and gallant Member I will make it my business to take it up with the exhibition authorities.

Mr. MACLEAN: Is it not desirable, since this Empire Exhibition is being held on behalf of Great Britain and the Empire, that decent wages should be paid to those employed in it in order to give a good name not only to the exhibition but to the British Empire?

Mr. SAMUEL: If the hon. Member will give me any specific cases of wrongful wages I will look into them.

Mr. MACKINDER: In view of the fact that it was definitely proved that labourers were receiving as low as 13s. per week plus bonus, rising to 17s., is it not better to inquire into these matters now before the contracts are let rather than to wait until afterwards when it will be so much more difficult to deal with such points

Mr. SAMUEL: Perhaps the hon. Member will raise that point in the Debate which is to take place later in the day.

Oral Answers to Questions — JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS (COSTS).

Mr. GRACE: 87.
asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been directed to the costs entailed by protracted High Court proceedings, especially in the matter of counsels' fees; and whether the Government is prepared to bring in a Bill for the protection of litigants, with a view to restricting the amount of fees allowed for counsel on the taxation of the costs of a successful party to the sum of 50 guineas for every day a trial has lasted?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: My attention has not infrequently been directed to the subject, but I do not contemplate attempting any legislation regarding it.

Mr. GRACE: Does not the right hon. Gentleman take the view that the cheaper we make the administration of justice the greater will be the confidence of the community in our judicial system?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I entirely agree, but the difficulty is that the brains of such eminent counsel are very dear.

Mr. GRACE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that no less than £30,000 has been spent in a recent case to decide whether a husband or a wife is telling the truth?

Mr. SPEAKER: That is not the fault of the Home Secretary.

Oral Answers to Questions — KENYA (COTTON AND COFFEE GROWING).

Mr. LANSBURY: 89.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies under what
Ordinance coffee grown by natives in Kenya is pulled up by the police?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for the COLONIES (Mr. Ormsby-Gore): The Registration of Coffee Plantations and Coffee Diseases Ordinance, 1918, requires that all coffee planters, regardless of race, shall register their plantations under penalty on conviction of fine, or imprisonment in default. I have no information with regard to coffee plants being pulled up.

Mr. LANSBURY: Can the hon. Gentleman tell the House the reason for this Ordinance, and why it should be illegal to grow coffee?

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: It is not illegal to grow coffee. It is illegal to grow it except under special conditions, because in Ceylon this particular quality of coffee grown in Kenya was wiped out by disease in one year.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Is it a fact that permission to grow coffee is refused to the natives of Kenya at the present time under this Ordinance?

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: It is not absolutely refused, but they have to comply with strict Regulations, and, in fact, very little is grown there. Experiments are taking place with regard to the control of native-grown coffee in the neighbouring territories, and until we have seen the results of these experiments it is better not to take risks which might result in wiping out the whole industry.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Is the hon. Gentleman satisfied that these Regulations are devised for the purpose of controlling disease, and not in order to prevent the natives from growing coffee?

Mr. MACLEAN: Will the hon. Gentleman inform the House whether restrictions similar to those applied in Kenya are applied in other parts of the Empire where coffee is grown?

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: No, but in very few other parts of the Empire is this particular kind of coffee grown. For instance, the bulk of the native-grown coffee in the two neighbouring territories is an entirely different kind of coffee.

Mr. G. HARVEY: Have the natives of Kenya any chance of doing anything at all for themselves?

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: Yes, they have a great deal of chance, and, as a matter of fact, they are producing increasing quantities of maize, cotton, and other products. The rapid increase in native production in the last two years has been very remarkable.

Mr. MACKINDER: Is it a fact that cotton is preferred to coffee?

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: Yes, cotton is preferred to coffee?

Oral Answers to Questions — EGYPT (DISSOLUTION OF PARLIAMENT).

Colonel WEDGWOOD: 90.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the advice of the High Commissioner has been asked for or given with regard to the dissolution of the Egyptian Parliament?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. Ronald McNeill): The reply is in the negative.

Oral Answers to Questions — HOUSING.

TIPTON URBAN DISTRICT COUNCIL.

Mr. SHORT: 91.
asked the Minister of Health the number of new houses erected by the Tipton Urban District Council and private enterprise, respectively, since 1st January, 1919?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of HEALTH (Sir Kingsley Wood): The numbers of new houses completed by the Tipton Urban District Council and by private enterprise in the urban district under the Housing Acts since the 1st January, 1919, are:

Local authority
…
…
150


Private enterprise
…
…
20

Statistics as to the numbers erected by private enterprise without State assistance during the same period are not available

Mr. SHORT: 93.
asked the Minister of Health what municipal housing schemes have been adopted and completed by the Tipton Urban District Council since 1st January, 1919; whether any are incomplete; if not, has any application been made by the authority to promote further schemes; and, if so, under what Act?

Sir K. WOOD: Since the 1st January, 1919, 150 houses have been completed by the Urban District Council of Tipton, and 20 by private enterprise with State assistance. In addition, the local authority have 44 houses under construction and 14 contracted for but not yet commenced; and three houses commenced by private builders have not yet been completed. The council also have authority to grant subsidy to private enterprise in respect of a farther 50 houses under the 1923 Act.

DARLASTON DISTRICT COUNCIL.

Mr. SHORT: 92.
asked the Minister of Health what municipal housing schemes have been adopted and completed by the Darlaston Urban District Council since 1st January, 1919; whether any are incomplete; if not, has any application been made by the authority to promote further schemes; and, if so, under what Act?

Sir K. WOOD: Since the 1st January, 1919, 14 houses have been completed by the Urban District Council of Darlaston, and 22 by private enterprise with State assistance. The local authority have been authorised under the 1924 Act to erect a further 36 houses which had not been commenced on the 1st March. Two houses in respect of which subsidy has been promised under the 1923 Act to private enterprise had not been completed on the 1st March, and the council have authority to grant subsidy to private builders in respect of a further 29 houses all under the 1923 Act.

WEST HAM.

Mr. GROVES: 94.
asked the Minister of Health whether he is aware that within the county borough of West Ham the number of private families occupying one room is 4,691, or 6.8 per cent. of the population, representing 9,469 persons, and of these one is a family of 11 person,' one is a family of nine persons, one is a family of eight persons, nine are families of seven persons, 30 are families of six persons, 99 are families of five persons, 306 are families of four persons, and 990 are families of three persons; and whether he will speedily deal with such conditions?

Sir K. WOOD: My right hon. Friend is aware of these figures which are contained in the Census of 1921. The only
practical way of dealing with such conditions is the building of more houses, and he hopes that he will have the support of the hon. Member in encouraging all methods which will expedite the building programme.

Mr. GROVES: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that in West Ham we can do nothing to abate this overcrowding except by putting these people into the workhouse, as we have no ground to build upon, and financially we cannot bear the strain of building outside. His Department should take cognisance of this fact. [HON. MEMBERS: "Speech!"]

Mr. GROVES: 95.
asked the Minister of Health if he is aware that the restriction of services in the sanitary departments during the War has left the various local authorities with an accumulation of structural defects and impairment of domestic amenities which, according to the number of sanitary inspectors afforded by local authorities and the conditions laid down by the Public Health Act, 1875, will take many years to overcome; whether he is informed of the great expenditure of time and money by and through the local authorities in being compelled to serve upon each individual owner of property, or rack-renter, a separate notice, requiring attention to defects in the property; and whether, in view of the published statements of the chief medical officer of the county borough of West Ham that over 75 per cent. of the working-class dwellings inspected during the years 1921, 1922, 1923 and 1924 were found to be not in all respects reasonably fit for human habitation, he will consider the introduction of legislation to authorise local authorities to at once issue general public notices directing attention to the insanitary state of dwellings, and calling upon all owners to immediately put the necessary repair work in hand, and that such public notice shall be considered to have taken the place of the usual individual notices, and that, failing compliance by any owner six months after the date of publication, the council will institute proceedings against such owners, and, in addition, instruct all tenants of such property to utilise Section 5 of the Rent and Mortgage Interest Restriction Act, 1923, which, on production of the certificate of the local sanitary authority at court,
absolves tenants from the payment of any increase of rent permitted under paragraphs (c) or (d) of sub-section (1) of Section 2 of the Rent Act?

Sir K. WOOD: My right hon. Friend is aware that there are in many cases arrears of repairs which resulted from war conditions, and have not yet been overtaken, but he does not consider that the process would be expedited by the suggestion made in the question or that it is possible to deal with specific defects by means of general public notices. My right hon. Friend has no reason to think that tenants generally are not aware of the provisions of Section 5 of the Rent and Mortgage Interest Restriction Act, 1923.

Mr. GROVES: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that, according to the present law, it will take us in West Ham 20 years to overtake the repairs? If the hon. Gentleman would not think I was directing my attack upon his Department, I would like to raise this specific case on the Motion for the Adjournment at a convenient date.

CO-OPERATIVE BUILDING.

Major HORE-BELISHA: 97.
asked the Minister of Health whether he has any figures to show to what extent co-operative building has been, and is being, resorted to; and, if in the opinion of his advisers it has been a success, will he cause a report to be issued indicating the conditions in which it has been successful?

Sir K. WOOD: Information is not available which would enable me to give a complete answer to the first part of the question; but 4,545 houses were built by public utility societies with State assistance under the Housing Act of 1919, and other such societies are receiving assistance from the local authorities or from my Department under the Act of 1923. Valuable work has been done by these societies, but so much must depend upon local conditions that my right hon. Friend does not think that he can usefully issue a report on the lines suggested.

SMALLHOLDERS.

Mr. SHEPPERSON: 101.
asked the Minister of Health if he is aware that, although subsidies are payable under the Housing Act, 1923, and the Housing Act, 1924, to both rural district councils and
private landowners who build cottages for the purposes of letting to agricultural labourers, no subsidy is available to smallholders who are owners who desire to build cottages for their own use; and will he take steps to remedy this in the interest of the small owner?

Sir K. WOOD: Subsidy under the Housing Act, 1924, is only available for houses built for letting; under the Act of 1923, however, subsidy should ordinarily be available in such cases as the hon. Member refers to, and if difficulties have arisen in any particular case, my right hon. Friend will be glad to investigate them if the hon. Member will send him details.

Mr. SHEPPERSON: Am I to understand that the landlord of a smallholder, who is an occupier, can under the 1924 Act get an increased subsidy, but if the smallholder happens to be the owner he cannot get that increased subsidy under the 1924 Act?

Sir K. WOOD: If my hon. Friend will see my reply, I think he will obtain the information he requires. The Act of 1924 does not permit it, but subject to the conditions of the Measure the Act of 193 would be available.

Oral Answers to Questions — PUBLIC ASSISTANCE.

Mr. GROVES: 96.
asked the Minister of Health if be is informed that certain boards of guardians in the country, notwithstanding the exceptional degree of unemployment within their area, do not actually relieve the poor and distressed people within their area; and whether, therefore, he will consider the possibility of tabulating a scale of relief to be given in ordinary out-relief and unemployed cases universally throughout the Kingdom, thus removing the present anomaly which allows one board of guardians to be generous while another can go to the other extreme and cut down relief to a scale on which it is impossible for the applicants to live?

Sir K. WOOD: My right hon. Friend has no information to the effect suggested in the first part, of the question, and in any ease he does not think it desirable to issue, a fixed scale of relief for general application.

Oral Answers to Questions — MILK.

Brigadier-General WARNER: 98.
asked the Minister of Health, in view of the dissatisfaction among dairy farmers as regards the present practice of taking samples of milk, under the Food and Drugs Act, at the place of destination, whether he is prepared to give instructions for samples to be taken immediately before delivery to the railway or transporting company?

Sir K. WOOD: My right hon. Friend has no power to give instructions as to the places at which samples of milk are to be taken under the Sale of Food and Drugs Acts.

Lieut.-Colonel Sir J. NALL: Is it an advantage to take these samples as late as possible before the milk is purveyed to the public?

Sir K. WOOD: That may be so, but that is not the question on the Paper.

An HON. MEMBER: If the samples could be taken earlier, would not that be desirable?

Sir K. WOOD: I will draw my right hon. Friend's attention to that suggestion.

Major COLFOX: What safeguard has the producer of milk against his milk bring adulterated after it leaves his control?

Oral Answers to Questions — PUBLIC HEALTH (MEAT) REGULA TIONS.

Brigadier-General WARNER: 99.
asked the Minister of Health whether it is intended to give financial assistance to rural district councils to assist them in carrying out the Public Health (Meat) Regulations, 1924, with regard to the inspection of slaughtering animals and carcases in localities where no public abattoirs exist?

Sir K. WOOD: My right hon. Friend regrets that he is unable to give any special financial assistance to rural district councils towards the expenses of enforcing the Public Health (Meat) Regulations. I may, however, remind my hon. and gallant Friend that one half of the approved salaries of the medical officer of health and sanitary inspector, who will usually be the principal officers
responsible for the administration of the regulations, is repayable by the county council out of the Exchequer Contribution Account.

Mr. MACKINDER: Is the hon. Gentleman satisfied that this inspection is carried on properly?

Sir K. WOOD: This question refers to inspections that are about to take place.

Oral Answers to Questions — POOR LAW REFORM.

Mr. POTTS: 100.
asked the Minister of Health whether legislation is contemplated enabling a corporation to exercise any of the functions now vested in boards of guardians under existing general law?

Sir K. WOOD: The question of Poor Law reform is being closely considered, but my right hon Friend is afraid that he cannot at present anticipate the proposals which he hopes in due course to submit in this connection.

Mr. POTTS: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the Bradford Corporation is seeking by that Bill to acquire certain powers, now vested in boards of guardians, and when that Bill comes before this House, will he undertake not to allow it to go through except by a general law affecting the whole country?

Sir K. WOOD: I am afraid I cannot anticipate my right hon. Friend's statement on that occasion.

Captain BENN: Can the hon. Gentleman say when the statement as to Poor Law reform will be made?

Sir K. WOOD: No; that is not a question that should be addressed to me.

Oral Answers to Questions — LABOUR GAZETTE.

Mr. H. WILLIAMS: 103.
asked the Minister of Labour if he is prepared to take steps, in consultation with distributors of newspapers and journals, to popularise the circulation of the Labour Gazette, in order that accurate information on industrial questions may be more widely spread?

The MINISTER of LABOUR (Sir Arthur Steel-Maitland): Certain special
steps have been taken recently to bring the Gazette to the notice of possible purchasers. I will consult with the Stationery Office as to whether action on the lines suggested by the hon. Member can usefully be taken.

Sir J. NALL: Can the right hon. Gentleman say why, if people do not want to buy this paper, it is proposed to continue printing it?

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: There are a lot of people who want to buy it, and I have been asked from various quarters to see if it cannot be extended.

Oral Answers to Questions — NOTICES OF MOTION.

QUESTIONS TO MINISTERS.

Mr. GRACE: I beg to give notice that, on this day fortnight, I shall call attention to the number of questions asked from the Liberal Benches and the necessity for economy in the time of this House, and move a Resolution.

ACCIDENTS IN MINES.

Mr. POTTS: I beg to give notice that, on this day fortnight, I shall call attention to the subject of accidents in the mining industry, and move a Resolution.

AGRICULTURE AND FOX-HUNTING.

Mr. EVERARD: I beg to give notice that on this day fortnight I shall call attention to the need for co-operation between agriculture and fox-hunting, and move a Resolution.

BILLS PRESENTED.

BLASPHEMY LAWS AMENDMENT BILL,

"to amend the Blasphemy Laws," presented by Mr. LANSBURY; supported by Mr. Snell, Mr. Thurtle, Mr. Dunnico, Dr. Salter, Captain Wedgwood Benn, Mr. Scurr, and Mr. Wallhead; to be read a Second time upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 144.]

HOME COUNTIES (MUSIC AND DANCING) LICENSING BILL,

"to amend the Law as regards music and dancing licences in parts of certain home counties and in certain county boroughs adjacent thereto," presented by Mr. ERNEST ALEXANDER; Supported by Mr.
Groves, Mr. Dunnico, Mr. Cassels, Mr. Crook, Mr. Barnes, Mr. Mellor, Mr. Looker, Mr. Rhys, and Major Crawfurd; to be read a Second time To-morrow, and to be printed.[Bill 145.]

STATE MANAGEMENT (LIQUOR TRADE) ABOLITION.

Colonel Sir ARTHUR HOLBROOK: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to abolish State management of the liquor traffic.
This, in effect, is to bring in a Bill to put an end to State control in the Carlisle area, and to transfer the properties now held by the Board of Control there to the public Trustee for disposal. State control of liquor in Carlisle was brought in, under the Defence of the Realm Act in May, 1915. It was done because of the opinion in that very large administrative area that the munition workers in the district had no proper provision made in regard to their refreshments. One would have thought that canteens would have supplied the need in a satisfactory manner, but apparently it was thought otherwise at the time. At the same time I would point out that when this scheme of control was brought in it was made clear by the then Prime Minister that it was purely a temporary Measure, a war-time expedient, and not a social experiment. Since then allegations have been made that this expedient has not been a success, and I think I shall be able to prove that the original idea that control was needed was wrong, and that as a social experiment—which it was subsequently claimed to be—this thing has failed, because control has been a dead failure.
In 1921 there was brought in a Licensing Amendment Bill. Under that, control was abolished, but a Clause was inserted providing for State management by the Government of the day—by the Home Secretary and the Secretary for Scotland. It was decided that control should only be continued until Parliament otherwise determined. I contend that the time has arrived when Parliament shall determine that this control should cease. I myself, when I first brought this matter forward in 1922, made a long visit to the Carlisle
area, and I would suggest to those who have criticised my action in the matter that they should do as I did—go down and make inquiry on the spot. They should hide their personal identity, and not go down to be taken round by any of the committee, or those in charge, to ace the best side of the system of control. In the London "Daily Mail" there is an aritcle by Sir Percival Phillips, who asks the question, "Has State control resulted in greater sobriety and prosperity in Carlisle? Has it been of greater benefit than private enterprise?" He then goes on to say this—and this is from a visit he made during the last few weeks—that drunkenness exists to a very marked extent, and that the convictions under this head do not represent the real state of affairs. I encountered a number of drunken men, some of them nearly incapable of walking up the road. In London these would have been collected by the first constable they encountered." The police in Carlisle do not exercise the same control as in other towns, because the Government are running the liquor trade. They do not go into any houses unless specially ordered to do so.
I want to show that sobriety has not increased under the Carlisle Liquor Control Board. In 1923, Carlisle, with a population of 52,000, had 89 convictions for drunkenness. In Plymouth, where, of course, under the auspices of the hon. Member who represents that place (Viscountess Astor), there is greater control exercised—with a large population of 210,000 persons there were only 76 convictions for drunkenness. In Stoke-on-Trent, with a population of 267,000—five times as many as in Carlisle—there were only 73 convictions for drunkenness. In Preston, with a population of 117,000, the convictions for drunkenness numbered 71. In Gloucester, with about the same population, the convictions for drunkenness number 33, as compared with 89 in Carlisle.
Take 1924, these figures have been issued lately. Carlisle had 71 convictions, a little less than before. Cardiff had 61. Reading, with double the population, had only 30 convictions. I contend that these figures prove beyond doubt that Governmental control of the liquor traffic in Carlisle has not been helpful towards the sobriety of its inhabitants. I am not going to suggest—no one would—that the
people of Carlisle are worse than the people in any other part of England. They are to a large extent working-class people, and I have in my hand letters sent by working men in Carlisle complaining of the system of management in the district. If they then fail in sobriety, what is the financial aspect of the case? In the financial figures that have been published no provision is made for Income Tax, Super-tax, Excess Profits Duty, and interest on Exchequer advances, all of which would be paid by a private owner. So I contend that the Government are really making a loss on this organisation. The Report published by the Geddes Committee in 1922 suggests that the object for which this particular operation is undertaken no longer exists, and a little further on it says that there is no reason for its continuance in view of the results so far obtained, and in view of the risk of loss in future years the State undertaking would not appear likely to afford any special financial advantages to the taxpayers. That Report was made with the ordinary Geddes Report on finance, but no action was taken, and, although the Geddes Committee suggested that no further houses should be acquired, within a year the Carlisle Control Committee were negotiating for the purchase of 29 additional public-houses. I asked a question in this House, and we were told that the idea had been dropped. Last week, I was told on very good authority, that they were purchasing a site opposite a school to build a public-house. I asked a question of the Home Secretary, and I was told that the answer was in the negative. There is no doubt that my question stopped the purchase of that land. A Member of this House had to relinquish his seat because his firm had a small contract with the Post Office. A member of the Advisory Committee carrying on this work for the Government has been drawing fees during the whole of the time for professional duties in connection with the, Carlisle control. It is against public policy that any professional man should draw fees for work and at the same time be a member of the committee which is employing him.
I said just now that Members should visit Carlisle without disclosing their identity. I have had a letter sent to me written by the Rev. William Stuart,
M.A., B.Sc., a Wesleyan minister, of Manchester, who paid a visit to Carlisle. He went to Wigton and gave a lecture. He said that he had been in all the controlled houses of Carlisle—though not in the guise of a minister—making inquiries and seeing the things that happened, and he had seen the awful drunkenness among women in these nationalised public-houses. The Control Board had no right to make him a, part-owner of these houses without asking his permission. A correspondent, writing of Mr. Stuart's visit, wonders how many drunken people escape arrest. The Chief Constable's report says that 27 women were convicted of drunkenness in Carlisle last year. In Whitehaven, a much larger district, only one was convicted, and there were only 13 convictions in all the rest of Cumberland. I think I have shown, therefore, that, so far as the result of this control is concerned, it has all been against the progress of social reform. I hold here a petition—

Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member has had his full time.

Sir A. HOLBROOK: This is a subject on which I might he allowed a "long pull."

Mr. SPEAKER: Does the hon. Member move?

Sir A. HOLBROOK: I beg to move.

Mr. TREVELYAN THOMSON: I beg to oppose the Motion. I hope that the House will not agree to the hon. and gallant Member's request. Although I am quite aware that the mere passing of the First Reading does not mean anything more than that the Bill should be printed, I am afraid that it would be taken outside as an indication that this House has some sympathy with the remarks and the position occupied by the hon. and gallant Member. He has suggested that this social experiment, being merely a war expedient, should come to an end, and he has given us some figures which he seemed to think showed that drunkenness in Carlisle was greater on account of this State management. I submit that these figures are fallacious, and that the true comparison is between the figures since the experiment was adopted and the figures before it was adopted. Surely, that is the sound comparison. We know that standards of discipline and of
control vary in different parts of the country. Therefore, the true comparison is between the convictions in the same place before and the convictions after the system had been altered, rather than to compare the figures in Carlisle with the figures for other parts of the country where there may be a very different standard. I could quote figures showing a considerably greater number of convictions for drunkenness than the hon. and gallant Member has shown in Carlisle, but I submit that they would be beyond the point. Before State control—take 1913 or 1914—you had in the Carlisle area 4.53 per 1,000 convictions, and they had fallen in 1924 to 1.34, a very considerable reduction

Sir A. HOLBROOK: Does not that apply to the whole country?

Mr. THOMSON: No. If the hon. and gallant Member takes the figures for the whole of the country in 1913 and to-day, he will find nothing like a similar comparison. In fact, Home Office figures were quoted in this House only the other day, showing a very considerable increase in the number of convictions during the last three years.

Mr. HURD: Not as compared with 1913.

Mr. THOMSON: Yes, as compared with 1913. [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] We must each exercise our own judgment as to the value of these figures and use our experience in our own districts. This experiment in State management is one of the few benefits which have accrued to us as the result of the War. It is true that it was a war experiment. What the evidence of the people on the spot? The hon. and gallant Member quoted a letter from a Wesleyan minister who visited the place. I submit that the responsible authorities, such as the chief constable, the mayor of the town, and the local labour organisations carry more weight that even a passing visitor such as the hon. and gallant Member quoted. May I just quote from the chief constable's last report He remarks that the convictions in Carlisle were the lowest on record, and he says:
From personal observation, I attribute great importance to the arrangement under which the licensed premises in Carlisle are conducted by the State management scheme. My inspectors, men with 30 years' police -experience, confirm this, and from a sobriety
point of view they have never known the city so well conducted.
The Mayor, who is chairman of the Licencing Justices, remarks the same.
His own observations led him to share the view that the policy pursued by the State management scheme was mainly responsible for this satisfactory state of affairs.
If you read the remarks of previous mayors from 1918 to 1924, they all agree that as regards the number of convictions and the sobriety of the town there has been a general improvement. If it be allowed to quote the clergy, the clergy in conference assembled passed the following resolution:
We, being clergy and ministers of religion in the City of Carlisle and neighbourhood, desire to place on record our general approval of the work of the Central Control Board in the Carlisle area, and we earnestly trust that there will be no return to the old licensing system. We hope that future legislation will follow the lines which have proved so beneficial to the Carlisle area.
The clergy of all denominations gathered together and speaking collectively with one voice have more weight than the one Minister to whom the hon. and gallant Member referred. Then the Labour organisations, gathered together in conference, approved by 22 votes to 1 of the change which had taken place and favoured its extension. This is a valuable social experiment which should go on. If you can eliminate self-interest in the sale of liquor or any commodity, you will get reduced returns. That is why we approve of private enterprise. It makes for bigger returns and bigger yields. We want in the drink traffic to have smaller returns and a smaller business. Therefore, we favour State management, because self-interest is eliminated. The managers of these houses have no profits on the sale of intoxicating liquors. They have a profit on the sale of food and on the sale of non-intoxicants. I submit, therefore, that a time, like the present, when the country is spending £300,000,000 a year on drink, is not the time to stop any effort which is of a restrictive character. Let me give one more quotation, because it shows from whence this opposition comes. The Chairman of the Carlisle Licensed Victuallers' Association, in a letter to the "Morning Advertiser," of 9th November, 1920, un
wittingly paid a high tribute to the Carlisle scheme. He said:
 So long as the Carlisle experiment is in existence, it will stand as a menace to the trade.
I submit that it is because of the menace to the trade we have this Motion moved by the hon. and gallant Gentleman who so ably represents those interests, and

who has put his case so well; and it is because it is a menace to the trade that the House should reject the Motion.

Question put,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to abolish State management of the Liquor Trade.

The House divided: Ayes, 142; Noes,140.

Division No. 67.]
AYES.
[4.12 p.m.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Glyn, Major R. G. C.
Oman, Sir Charles William C.


Agg-Gardner, Rt. Hon. Sir James T.
Goff, Sir Park
Penny, Frederick George


Alexander, E. E. (Leyton)
Grace, John
Peto, Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)


Atkinson, C.
Grant, J. A.
Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)


Balniel, Lord
Greene, W. P. Crawford
Power, Sir John Cecil


Barr, J.
Gretton, Colonel John
Preston, William


Bellairs, Commander Carlyon W.
Hacking, Captain Douglas H.
Price, Major C. W. M.


Blades, Sir George Rowland
Hall, Capt. W. D'A. (Brecon & Rad.)
Raine, W.


Blundell, F. N.
Hanbury, C.
Ramsden, E.


Bourne, Captain Robert Croft
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Remnant, Sir James


Brass, Captain W.
Harland, A.
Rentoul, G. S.


Briscoe, Richard George
Hartington, Marquess of
Rice, Sir Frederick


Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Haslam, Henry C.
Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y)


Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I.
Henderson, Capt. R. R. (Oxf'd, Henley)
Roberts, Samuel (Hereford, Hertford)


Buckingham, Sir H.
Heneage, Lieut.-Col. Arthur P.
Ropner, Major L.


Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James
Hennessy, Major J. R. G.
Ruggles-Brise, Major E. A.


Bullock, Captain M.
Henniker-Hughan, Vice-Adm. Sir A.
Salmon, Major I.


Burgoyne, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Alan
Holland, Sir Arthur
Sanders, Sir Robert A.


Butler, Sir Geoffrey
Homan, C. W. J.
Sanderson, Sir Frank


Campbell, E. T.
Hope, Capt. A. O. J. (Warw'k, Nun.)
Savery, S. S.


Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston)
Hopkins, J. W. W.
Shaw, R. G. (Yorks, W.R., Sowerby)


Charteris, Brigadier-General J.
Howard, Captain Hon. Donald
Shaw, Lt.-Col. A. D. Mc[...]. (Renfrew, W)


Christie, J. A.
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M.(Hackney, N.)
Shaw, Capt. W. W. (Wilts, Westb'y)


Clayton, G. C.
Iliffe, Sir Edward M.
Shepperson, E. W.


Cohen, Major J. Brunel
Jacob, A. E.
Smith-Carington, Neville W.


Craik, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry
Jephcott, A. R.
Smithers, Waldron


Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.
Kidd, J. (Linlithgow)
Sprot, Sir Alexander


Crooke, J. Smedley (Deritend)
Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement
Stanley, Lord (Fylde)


Crookshank, Cpt. H. (Lindsey, Gainsbro)
Knox, Sir Alfred
Steel, Major Samuel Strang


Curzon, Captain Viscount
Lamb, J. Q.
Stott, Lieut.-Colonel W. H.


Dalkeith, Earl of
Leigh, Sir John (Clapham)
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser


Dixey, A. C.
Lougher, L.
Tinne, J. A.


Doyle, Sir N. Grattan
Lowe. Sir Francis William
Titchfield, Major the Marquees of


Edmondson, Major A. J.
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Vere
Waddington, R.


England, Colonel A.
Luce, Major-Gen. Sir Richard Harman
Ward, Lt.-Col. A.L.(Kingston-on-Hull)


Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s.-M)
Lumley, L. R.
Warner, Brigadier-General W. W.


Everard, W. Lindsay
Macquisten, F. A.
Warrender, Sir Victor


Fairfax, Captain J. G.
Malone, Major P. B
Wells, S. R.


Falle, Sir Bertram G.
Meller, R. J.
White, Lieut.-Colonel G. Dairymple


Fanshawe, Commander G. D.
Meyer, Sir Frank
Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)


Fermoy, Lord
Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)
Wilson, M. J. (York, N. R., Richm'd)


Forestier-Walker, L.
Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)
Wise, Sir Fredric


Foster, Sir Harry S.
Murchison, C. K.
Woodcock, Colonel H. C.


Foxcroft, Captain C. T.
Nall, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Joseph
Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T.


Fraser, Captain Ian
Nelson, Sir Frank



Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.
Neville, R. J.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Ganzoni, Sir John
Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield)
Sir A. Holbrook and Lieut.-Colonel James.


Gee, Captain R.
Nuttall, Ellis



Gibbs, Col. Rt. Hon. George Abraham
Oakley, T.



NOES.


Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)
Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.
Garro-Jones, Captain G. M.


Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')
Compton, Joseph
Gibbins, Joseph


Atholl, Duchess of
Connolly, M.
Gillett, George M.


Attlee, Clement Richard
Conway, Sir W. Martin
Gosling, Harry


Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)
Cove, W. G.
Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edin., Cent.)


Barnes, A.
Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)
Greenall, T.


Batey, Joseph
Crawfurd, H. E.
Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)


Beckett, John (Gateshead)
Davies, A. V. (Lancaster, Royton)
Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)


Benn, Captain Wedgwood (Leith)
Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)
Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)


Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
Davies, Evan (Ebbw Vale)
Groves, T.


Broad, F. A.
Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Grundy, T. W.


Brown, Maj. D. C. (N'th'l'd., Hexham)
Day, Colonel Harry
Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton)


Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)
Dennison, R.
Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)


Buxton, Rt. Hon. Noel
Duncan, C.
Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland)


Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)
Dunnico, H.
Hammersley, S. S.


Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton
Fenby, T. D.
Hardie, George D.


Cluse, W. S.
Fisher, Rt. Hon. Herbert A. L.
Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon


Hastings, Sir Patrick
Murnin, H.
Sutton, J. E.


Hayday, Arthur
Naylor, T. E.
Thomas, Rt. Hon. James H. (Derby)


Hayes, John Henry
Oliver, George Harold
Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton, E.)


Henderson, Right Hon. A. (Burnley)
Owen, Major G.
Thurtle, E.


Henderson, T. (Glasgow)
Palin, John Henry
Tinker, John Joseph


Hirst, G. H.
Paling, W.
Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. C. P.


Hope, Sir Harry (Forfar)
Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)
Viant, S. P.


Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)
Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.
Wallhead, Richard C.


Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)
Ponsonby, Arthur
Walsh, Rt. Hon. Stephen


Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)
Potts, John S.
Warne, G. H.


John, William (Rhondda, West)
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)
Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)


Johnston, Thomas (Dundee)
Ritson, J.
Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)


Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)
Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O.(W. Bromwich)
Webb, Rt. Hon. Sidney


Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Robinson, W.C. (Yorks, W. R., Elland)
Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. Josiah


Kennedy, T.
Rose, Frank H.
Westwood, J.


Kenworthy, Lt.-Com. Hon. Joseph M.
Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter
Wheatley, Rt. Hon. J.


Kenyon, Barnet
Salter, Dr. Alfred
Whiteley, W.


Kindersley, Major Guy M.
Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)
Wignall, James


Lansbury, George
Shiels, Dr. Drummond
Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)


Lawson, John James
Simms, Dr. John M. (Co. Down)
Williams, David (Swansea, E.)


Lee, F.
Sinclair, Major Sir A. (Caithness)
Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)


Livingstone, A. M.
Slesser, Sir Henry H.
Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)


MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R.(Aberavon)
Smith, H. B. Lees (Keighley)
Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)


Mackinder, W.
Smith, Rennie (Penistone)
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)


Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)
Snell, Harry
Windsor, Walter


McNeill, Rt. Hon. Ronald John
Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip
Wood, Rt. Hon. E. (York, W.R., Ripon)


MacRobert, Alexander M.
Spencer, George A. (Broxtowe)
Wright, W.


Maitland, Sir Arthur D. Steel-
Stamford, T. W.



March, S.
Stephen, Campbell
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Mitchell, E. Rosslyn (Paisley)
Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)
Mr. Trevelyan Thomson and Mr. Bromley.


Montague, Frederick
Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)



Question put, and agreed to.

Bill ordered to be brought in by Colonel Sir Arthur Holbrook, Mr. Remer, Lieut. - Colonel James, Lieut. - Colonel Sir Frederick Hall, Brigadier-General Charteris, Captain Howard and Colonel Perkins.

STATE MANAGEMENT (LIQLTOR TRADE) ABOLITION BILL,

"to abolish State management of the Liquor Trade," presented accordingly, and read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 146.]

AIR MINISTRY (CROYDON AERODROME EXTENSION) BILL.

Reported, with Amendments, from the Select Committee.

Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

Bill, as amended, re-committed to a Committee of the Whole House for Thursday, and to be printed. [Bill 143.]

GREENWICH HOSPITAL (DISUSED BURIAL GROUND) BILL.

Ordered, That the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills do examine the Greenwich Hospital (Disused Burial Ground) Bill with respect to compliance with the Standing Orders relative to Private Bills.

BARROW-IN-FURNESS CORPORA TION BILL.

Reported, with Amendments, from the Local Legislation Committee (Section B) [Title amended); Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

SELECTION (STANDING COMMITTEES).

STANDING COMMITTEE A.

Mr. WILLIAM NICHOLSON reported from the Committee of Selection; That they had added the following Ten Members to Standing Committee A (in respect of the Charitable Trusts Bill): Mr. Sandeman Allen. Mr. Batey, Mr. Bennett, Major Crawfurd, Mr. Duncan, Mr. Guinness, Sir Sydney Henn, Captain Arthur Hope, Major Alan McLean, and Lieut.-Colonel Spender-Clay.

STANDING COMMITTEE B.

Mr. WILLIAM NICHOLSON further reported from the Committee; That they had added the following Fifteen Members to Standing Committee B (in respect of the Rent and Mortgage Interest (Restrictions Continuation) Bill): Mr. Attorney-General, Mr. Neville Chamberlain, Captain Elliot, Lieut.-Colonel Fremantle, Mr. Gates, Mr.
Arthur Greenwood, Mr. Dennis Herbert, Mr. Mardy Jones, Mr. Kidd, Sir John Marriott, Mr. Remer, Mr. Trevelyan Thomson, Mr. Viant, Mr. Wheatley, and Major Wheler.

Reports to lie upon the Table.

LONDON ELECTRICITY SUPPLY (No. 2) BILL [Lords].

Reported, with Amendments; Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.

Indian Affairs,—That they have appointed a Committee consisting of eleven Lords, to join with a Committee of the Commons, as a Standing Joint Committee on Indian Affairs, and request the Commons to appoint an equal number of their Members to be joined with the said Lords.

Orders of the Day — BRITISH EMPIRE EXHIBITION (GUARANTEE) BILL.

Order for Second Reading read.

Mr. ARTHUR MICHAEL SAMUEL (Secretary, Overseas Trade Department): I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."
When the Financial Resolution was under discussion, I made very large demands on the patience of hon. Members, and therefore I do not propose to trespass upon the kindness of the House to-day by going over the ground which I covered on that occasion, but will endeavour to confine my remarks to points which arose in the course of that discussion. The Bill is brought forward for the purpose of guaranteeing the sum of £1,100,000 for the British Empire Exhibition. Of that sum only, £500,000 is new money. The amount of the original guarantee was £100,000. In May, 1924, the late Government introduced and carried a Resolution empowering the guarantee of another £500,000, but before that second guarantee could be translated into the form of a Bill there was a change in the Ministry. The present Government have to taken over that £500,000 and put it into this Bill, and added £500,000 for the 1925 exhibition, and this with the original £100,000 makes a total of £1,100,000. That is how that sum is arrived at. In the Debate upon the Resolution before this Bill was introduced the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Swansea (Mr. Runciman) passed criticisms upon the accounts of the British Empire Exhibition, with out having a full knowledge of the matter, which seem to have given some considerable offence. I have received a letter on the subject from Sir James Cooper, who, I would remind the House, is the official put in by the Treasury and ourselves to, if I may again say so with out offence, act as the watch-dog for the House of Commons. He has sent me a copy of a letter forwarded to him by Messrs. Whinney, Smith and Whinney, who are among the best-known accountants in the City of London. I think I had better read this letter, because it disposes of what the right hon.
Gentleman the Member for West Swansea feared and said, and I think when he has heard this letter he will see that he was misinformed. Here is the copy of a letter sent by Messrs. Whinney, Smith and Whinney to Sir James Cooper it is dated the 6th March. It says:

"DEAR SIR,

British Empire Exhibition (1924) Incorporated.

Our attention has been called to Mr. Runciman's observations in the course of the Debate in the House of Commons on the 2nd instant, when he is reported as having said, "The accounting itself was loose.' I think the hon. Gentleman himself "—

that. is, myself—
confessed on the last occasion that the accounting was loose and wherever you have loose accounting you are bound to have a waste of money.
I may say that the right hon. Gentleman is entirely mistaken in saying I confessed that the accounting was loose. I have turned up the OFFICIAL REPORT, and on page 1992, 25th February, 1925, I find that what I said was this:
There was an increase in the amount expended because, to our great joy, all the units of the British Empire came in except the Irish Free State and British North Borneo … and that is the reason of the increase from £1,600,000 to the £2,950,000. There is another reason and a very good reason. Things had to be done in a great hurry and you cannot estimate in a hurry. Then, with the best will in the world, it is impossible to know exactly what things are going to cost for an Exhibition."—[OFFICIAL, REPORT, 25th February, 1925; col. 1992, Vol. 189.]

Then the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Swansea said:
One of the reasons given to explain why the Estimate was exceeded very much is the extension of the Exhibition owing to a larger number of units coming in than was originally expected. How much of the 90 per cent. increased cost is due to that reason? Surely it i5 a very small proportion. There must have been a serious miscalculation.

Then I went on to say:
I should not offhand like to agree with the right hon. Gentleman."—[OFFICIAL REPORT. 25th February. 1925; col. 1992. Vol. 180.]

He must not attribute to me any confession of loose accounting. I will now proceed with the letter from Messrs. Whinney, Smith and Whinney:
We desire to state that from its inception we acted as auditors of the
accounts of the Exhibition, and in the first instance advised as to the system upon which such accounts should be kept. We also conducted a continuous audit of such accounts, and every month prepared and submitted to the Finance Committee a statement of revenue and expenditure showing the total receipts and payments on revenue account. These accounts, after our audit thereof, were available for the Finance Committee at their monthly meetings, which were held, as a rule, during the month succeeding that to which the accounts related and from time to time"—

Let me emphasise those words "from time to time"—
as circumstances required we brought to the notice of the said Committee such matters as in our judgment required their attention, and to the extent to which it was deemed practicable by the Finance Committee or Board of Management our recommendations were adopted. In so far as Mr. Runciman's criticism may be considered to apply to the work upon which we have been engaged we submit that it should be either substantiated or withdrawn. We are ready to furnish the Secretary of the Overseas Trade Department with full information as to the work we carried out and, if the Finance Committee approve, to produce for his consideration the whole of the accounts which we have furnished to the Finance Committee from time to time and our various reports.

Yours faithfully,

Whinney, Smith and Whinney."

I think after that letter the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Swansea will be satisfied that this information gives us all a very good reason for assuming that the auditing and accounting for the British Empire Exhibition was thoroughly good and exhaustive in its operation. As a matter of fact, the accounts were carried on from day to day from the 1st January, 1920, and have been taken right up to date to within a few days of when I was introducing the Resolution; they were issued on the 14th January, 1925, and they are going on still. I think, therefore, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Swansea will feel reassured that matters are much more satisfactory than he feared they were when he took part in the Debate. I would like, on behalf of the Government, to say how greatly we are all indebted to the board of management of the exhibition. A few people, only a few, have banged and crabbed this exhibition, but they have no idea of the immense amount of work that was put into it
by the board of management. Let me express thanks to them and assure them that we all feel confident that they have done their utmost to make a success of a very difficult task. In the presence even of one member of the board, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for. Derby (Mr. J. H. Thomas), I would like to say that the Government recognises how whole-heartedly he himself has assisted his colleagues and the exhibition as a whole. I notice that the hon. and gallant Member for Basingstoke (Sir A. Holbrook) and the hon. and gallant Member for South Hackney (Captain Garro-Jones) have placed on the Paper Amendments to the Second Reading of this Bill, and I will endeavour to give them full information in regard to these Amendments. In his Amendment the hon. and gallant Member for Basingstoke deals with the question of rest rooms for the staff and sanitary accommodation. On this head I wish to inform the House that the following improvements have been made and will become operative in 1925: Lavatory and washing accommodation will be reserved exclusively for the use of the staff at the four staff institutes and women's rest rooms situated at different points in the exhibition grounds. The exhibition authorities have waived the charge which was made in 1924 for the use of the staff institutes and rest rooms. At the three institutes meals will be served at canteen prices: a special restaurant in the Palace of Engineering will also be reserved entirely for the use of the staff. The arrangements for women's welfare will again be in the hands of an experienced lady superintendent, who will be assisted by six matrons stationed at the staff institutes and rest rooms in different parts of the grounds. Within the last two or three days the exhibition authorities have written to the Home Secretary and asked him to send an official of his own to see what is actually being done about welfare matters. I think this will ensure that everything will be kept as it should be and prevent recurrence of undesirable incidents which have been brought to my notice in the past, and I think the hon. and gallant Member for Basingstoke may rest assured that the arrangements will be better in the future.

One or two other points are now raised on the Second Reading of the British Empire Exhibition Bill, and one is a com-
plaint that there is not adequate Government control over the management of the exhibition. What does adequate mean? Does it mean effective, and, if so, how are we to make control effective without assuming a large amount of responsibility for the entire conduct of the exhibition? And that we decline to assume. Here we are at the first week of April and we are hoping to get the exhibition open by the first week in May. It is no good trying to swop horses while you are crossing the stream. If one asks that the control of the exhibition shall be changed within the next 30 days the result will be chaos. Would the private guarantors agree to change of control? I think not. Would the Dominions and Colonies agree? I doubt it. Have the hon. Members for South Hackney and South West Bethnal Green (Mr. Harris) realised where their Amendment leads them? Yet that is their condition for agreeing to a Second Reading. Finally, I may remind the House that the Dominions and the Colonies are already well looked after by Sir James Allen and the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby (Mr. J. H. Thomas). To give effect to the Amendment put down by the hon. Member for South Hackney and the hon. Member for South West Bethnal Green would not only be impossible but disastrous, if possible, and it would bring down the exhibition to confusion. For these reasons, I hope these two Amendments will not be proceeded with.

There is one point I have thought over a great deal since the last discussion. Even criticisms in the Press have taken the line that we are going to lose £1,100,000 over this exhibition. I take quite a different view about the money loss. There is a good deal more to be said about this exhibition than money. There is something connected with the exhibition which you cannot measure at all in terms of money. If you pay for 500 tons of coal to raise steam on a ship, you must not say that you have lost the money. You get it back in freight receipts. If the nation provides the whole £1,100,000 of the guarantee for this exhibition, I maintain that it gets that money back over and over again. It is not lost. I will explain why. I have reason to know from returns furnished by the Home Secretary that no less than 70,000 foreign
visitors, not the scourings of the slums of Europe, but honoured, welcome guests came here specifically to see the exhibition last year, and we know they came quite apart from the figures given by the Home Secretary. I have read recently the report of the Savoy Hotel, and they say they have benefited very much by the exhibition. We have also read the reports of other concerns, and of the railways, and that they have also benefited very much in this way.

If 70,000 foreign visitors have come specially to London to see the exhibition they could not have spent in England less than £25 or £30 each, but if they only spent £15 each they would have spent in this country nearly the £1,100,000 which we are asking should be provided for this purpose. Then I would like to point out that this £1,100,000 is provided by the taxpayers of the nation as a whole. Extra money is brought into this country by the visitors, and the exhibition guarantee by the nation is more than balanced by the money which these visitors spend in this country. Hon. Gentlemen must also remember that the Dominions and India and the Colonies spent a large amount of money in buildings at the exhibition: they voted for that purpose about £1,700,000, and the greater portion of that money was brought here and spent in this country largely in wages. Thus we can look at the matter from the point of view of employment. The exhibition gave employment to those persons who made the exhibits, the machinery, the buildings, the goods and the wares, and the textiles, and I think I am well within the mark when I say that not less than £20,000,000 must have been spent in producing those goods for the exhibition. When hon. Members talk about loss by this guarantee of:01,100,000, they do not take into account the benefit the nation has received back in money on the lowest grounds.

Mr. RUNCIMAN: The hon. Gentleman, who has just sat down, opened his speech by reading a letter from the auditors of the British Empire Exhibition, which makes special reference to a statement I made in the House in the earlier stages of this proposal. May I say, that so far as the auditors are concerned, I never said anything in criticism of them. As a matter of fact, I never mentioned them or their work, and I should never think of questioning the standard of auditing undertaken by Messrs. Whinney. The hon. Gentleman is certainly not dealing with the criticisms which I made when he speaks of the correct auditing done by Messrs. Whinney and the fact that the clerks of that firm did all that was necessary in connection with the audit. What I pointed out was, that the estimates were so far away from the actual expenditure as to be almost ridiculous, and they were entirely illusory. Those Estimates misled the guarantors, just as much as they misled the executive committee.

Mr. SAMUEL: The charge was "loose accounting."

Mr. RUNCIMAN: My criticism was that an Estimate of £1,100,000 for preliminary expenses ultimately became £2,850,000. As for loose accounting, all I can say if accounting of that nature were done in connection with a private firm it would soon lead to bankruptcy. Unless the guarantees had been obtained the exhibition could not have been proceeded with. Let me take an example of what the hon. Gentleman calls good accounting. When criticising the account-
ing, let me compare it with the method which has now been introduced by the hon. Gentleman. He says that the amount of the guarantee of £1,100,000 does not necessarily mean a loss. Of course, that remains to be seen, and it depends entirely upon the attendance at the exhibition. The exhibition authorities and the right hon. Gentleman's Department estimate that they will have this year 9,000,000 visitors, and that that will be sufficient to make both ends meet. But even if you get 9,000,000 the £1,100,000 will be absorbed. If the number of visitors is more than 9,000,000 I presume a profit will be made and the heavy loss will be diminished.

Mr. SAMUEL: I take exception to the phrase "heavy loss." Even if the whole of the 21;100,000 has to be paid it will not be a loss.

Mr. RUNCIMAN: I am not talking about Imperial advantages, or the advertisement which may come to this country from the exhibition. I am dealing with the actual money expended. The hon. Member questions whether this £1,100,000 will be absorbed. On the figures given if there are 9,000,000 visitors, I understand that no deficit will have to be provided. The right hon. Gentleman may not like the word "loss," and so I use the word "deficit." At all events, the amount we have to provide out of national funds will not fall short of £1,100,000, unless the attendance is unexpectedly large. The right hon. Gentleman said, "After all if we expend that money it is not lost, we have certain incidental advantages," and he puts some of them down in terms of money. Let us see what his principles of accounting are when we deal with this way of providing for the £1,100,000. There were 70,000 foreign visitors, who were supposed to have spent something like £1,100,000 at a low estimate. Does he imagine they did not get goods for what they paid, that they did not pay for their hotels and for the rent for their rooms? That £1,100,000 is not clear profit. It has provided nothing in the way of an appropriation-in-aid for his Department.
If that is the way it stands, I presume this year, if the foreign visitors come to 140,000, the account will be £2,200,000 in pocket. That sort of accounting would not hold water in the mast trivial commercial
concern. I am surprised that the right hon. Gentleman should have presented that method to the House. He also points out that there have been other incidental advantages. The Dominions spent £1,750,000 on their buildings, and that, money was brought into the country by the Dominions. The right hon. Gentleman is now pleading for a second year of the exhibition. That amount was spent last year, but that incidental advantage will not be repeated this year. They are not intending to expend any more on their buildings this year than they spent last. That refers to last year's account. When I referred to loose accounting, I meant loose in terms of time as well as of money. What appeared in last year's account cannot be put to the credit of the exhibition account for 1925. As to the expenditure on actual goods for the exhibition, do not let the right hon. Gentleman imagine that that is all clear profit. It is only clear profit if it has provided such an additional amount of work for the firms that exhibited that they are going to see a much larger turnover for the amount of money they poured out by way of their exhibits.
Let me now come to the other side. I have dealt with accounting, but have kept that quite apart from the purely imperial aspect. No one under-estimates the Imperial advantages that came from the opening of the exhibition last year. It brought together people from all over the Empire and from all over this country, and education in Imperial questions was as necessary in this country as it was abroad, for there are very large numbers of people in our own islands who know little or nothing about the vast extent and variety of the British Empire. Those advantages we do not depreciate. I have no doubt the educational effect of the exhibition last year has been admirable here as well as among our Dominion fellow-subjects. But that was done last year. Does the right hon. Gentleman imagine that exactly the same effect is going to be produced, on the same people, for a second time this year? If he is making a plea for this year he must put it on new grounds, or on the fact that the education is to be spread among a new class of people who were not affected last year. If we are to have the advantage twice over, it cannot be twice
over on the same people. Does he really imagine that the 9,000,000 people who are estimated to be going to the exhibition this year are going to be an entirely new 9,000,000? I am sure he has done us an injustice—those of us who criticise the opening of the exhibition for a second year. We have never under-estimated the Imperial advantages. What we have done is to point out that to open it for a second year is a doubtful experiment. It is very doubtful whether it will produce any of the advantages of last year—whether the exhibition itself will have any commensurate commercial gain—and there are large numbers of business men with whom I am sure the right hon. Gentleman must have been in touch who hold that view so strongly that they have not renewed their exhibits. Whole blocks of industries will be absent. They have done that on the very good business ground that it is not going to bring them an increased turnover. So far as the exhibition itself is concerned, it can go on to a large extent providing us with an advertisement of British goods, but may I mention one way in which the exhibition last year certainly did very little to help matters in relation to foreign visitors? Anyone who was at the exhibition last year would gather that the whole of the directions and notices were put up in English only, and when a Frenchman or a Dutchman or a Spaniard went he had nothing to guide him except the British language, and one frequently came across people who were talking rather broken English, unable to find their way about because they did not understand the notices. I only mention this incidentally in the hope that the right hon. Gentleman will convey to the exhibition authorities that they might at least make use of some other language than our own if they want foreign visitors to take full advantage of the exhibition.
I only mention that in passing. The important fact is that the figures which have been presented from time to time have been subject to repeated revision. We do not even now know whether we have come to an end and what the exhibition is going to cost. I have never thought of blaming the public-spirited gentlemen who have taken such a large part in trying to make the exhibition a success. Some of them have pledged their private credit, as the Duke of Devonshire
did. Others have worked night and day in order to snake the thing go well. I think before the House is asked to provide for this extended guarantee we should have had in a much more emphatic form the assurance of the right hon. Gentleman and the Government that the amount of the guarantee was going to be the last of the liabilities we have to provide from national funds for the exhibition. It will certainly run the risk in the coming year of being a failure as a second year exhibition. Second year exhibitions have notoriously been failures in the past. If it is going to be a success, all that can happen will be that the Government's guarantee will be swallowed up and no further liability will be incurred. As for the private guarantors, they have already been told by the exhibition authorities that their guarantees, if they are renewed for this year, can do them no harm and that they do not increase their liability, while there is a possibility of a certain amount being paid off. I doubt very much whether that will be the case, but before the right hon. Gentleman gets his Bill he ought to repeat in an explicit form what he said on the Committee stage of the Financial Resolution, that the extra amount he is asking for is the last he will ask for and that we know what the limit of the liability is, and that we should not go into the exhibition this year the authorities feeling that if they end up with a further and larger deficit they can come once more to the House of Commons and plead that we are honourably bound to make a further payment. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will safeguard us against that and make it quite clear what the amount is and that it is the last we shall have to incur, and that the exihibition authorities cannot take advantage of his kindness of heart and the Imperial sympathy of the late Colonial Secretary.

Mr. J. H. THOMAS: I make no apology for my Imperial sentiments. I want to say the House of Commons is not only entitled to raise all these questions, but it is a duty which I have always urged, and we are entitled to ascertain the facts. It is fair to point out first that every estimate was falsified, that is to say, those originally responsible never conceived the difficulties they had to meet. The exhibition was not thought of last year, it was thought of a number of years ago,
and unfortunately a number of those who were originally responsible are dead and have not had the advantage of even seeing how well they did their work in spite of the difficulties. In the first place, it was not only the greatest exhibition the world ever knew, but it was five or six times greater than any that had preceded it. When it came near enough to the opening there were 101 difficulties never contemplated, and that explains the deficit. One thing was never estimated for by anyone and that was the abnormally wet weather of last year. 17,000,000 people attended, and in addition to that, London never saw the exhibition. That is a curious thing that is not fully appreciated. Millions came from the Provinces. I will ask any hon. Member if it did not strike him as something worth accomplishing when he came to the House and saw there or in Palace Yard any morning, day after day, the thousands who came here via Wembley. I attach some importance to that. One met one's own constituents, and the tremendous interest they showed in the House of Commons day after day was all due to their visits to Wembley. We have made private inquiries from every firm whose employés came to London last year to ascertain what were the prospects, with cheap excursion rates, of their coming here again, and 90 per cent. have replied that their employés express a desire to come again. It is no good arguing against those facts. With regard to exhibits, the answer to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Swansea (Mr. Runciman) is this. In the first place, it is not true that the Dominions are not spending money.

Mr. RUNCIMAN: I did not say that. I said once the buildings were put up there was no necessity for any more capital expenditure on the buildings.

Mr. THOMAS: I understand exactly what was said. That is exactly the reverse of the fact, because Australia and Canada are putting up an entirely new show, if I may use that phrase, this year. They are spending large sums of money, and that is true also of nearly every one of the others. It is obvious that there is no need really for expenditure on the structural side, but I would ask hon. Members to observe the number of people all through this winter who, but for the exhibition having been kept open, would
have been on the dole, and certainly during the last three months the tremendous number who have been employed and who otherwise would not have been employed. That is a thing we ought to take into consideration when viewing it from the standpoint of pounds, shillings and pence, which is the only way to deal with the accountancy side. I do not agree at all with the suggestion that the Government should take over responsibility. You have only to examine it for a moment. If the Government are going to take over control, they must take over the financial responsibility and relieve all the guarantors. I am sure you have only to realise that to see that it is a ridiculous suggestion to make and one which hope the Government will not listen to for a moment. I primarily got up to say one other thing, and it is this. Whether this Bill goes
5.0 P.M.
through to-day or not—I am sure it will go through—the exhibition will open in a few weeks. Now whatever may have been said about the mistakes of the past, is it not time that we boosted it? I can understand Parliamentary criticism, which is our duty, but when we know that in a couple of weeks' time the exhibition will open, when we know that from all parts of the Dominions—and I say this from authoritative information—large numbers are coming again this year, and that an attendance of 9,000,000 is estimated, there is still to be considered the assets in the exhibition, which are lost sight of by many people. There are tremendous grounds and buildings which are assets.

Mr. RUNCIMAN: They are mortgaged.

Mr. THOMAS: The right hon. Gentleman must know more about it than I do. They are not.

Mr. RUNCIMAN: The hon. Member told us they were pledged to the Bank.

Mr. THOMAS: Yes, pledged obviously for the overdraft. But I am dealing with the deficit. They are pledged for the overdraft at this moment, but there remain the assets to be dealt with when the Exhibition is closed, and, in my judgment, they will be a very valuable asset.

Mr. JOHNSTON: For the nation.

Mr. THOMAS: I hope they will be. I hope they will not be thrown away or scrapped. That, however, is another matter. The other point with which I want to deal is this: There are difficulties at the moment in connection with many different grades and sections of labour at Wembley. I am sure we all appreciate that the scandal of last year has been removed, namely, the question of lavatory
accommodation. I see no reason why, instead of decrying Wembley because of legitimate grievances, it should not be possible for an attempt to be made at once to get some body representing the exhibition on the one side, and labour on the other, to meet together and thrash out the difficulties, instead of all the time damaging the credit of a place which we all want to be a success. I will certainly do all I can in that direction.
There is only one other question. My hon. Friend the Member for Balham (Sir A. Butt), in a speech he made on the last occasion, made a very serious indictment against those responsible for the exhibition. He went so far as to say that, to his knowledge, not only was there incompetence, but there was corruption. This matter was considered by the executive committee. Here let me say that no words could adequately express our thanks to those gentlemen who did tremendous work, and incurred financial loss, in trying to make the exhibition a success, and they feel that their honour is involved when a statement of that kind is made. They do not mind Members of Parliament getting up and very properly telling Mr. Speaker that they could do things much better than the authorities, who, naturally, recognise that, or the Gentlemen would not be here. They accept that as quite legitimate criticism, but when their honour is involved, as it is involved by a charge of corruption, they, naturally, not only feel very deeply, but they very strongly resent it.
I am quite sure my hon. Friend would not have made the statement, unless he felt he had good ground for doing so. Stirring up mud does not help us anywhere; but, on the other hand, if there are serious allegations such as that, it is a matter which ought to be cleared up, and if my hon. Friend has got any evidence which, in his judgment, shows that things are not right, I will undertake to have them looked into myself. I say that
as a member of the executive committee, because I am naturally involved as a member of that committee. I am quite sure the hon. Member is only anxious to have the thing go straight. He only wants the best to be done, as we all do, and I hope we will pass this Bill, and give the necessary authority to my right hon. Friend to proceed. With my hon. Friend, I hope it will be a success. I cannot see why it should not be, for this reason. Supposing the estimates are falsified again by weather, or some other reason, if the exhibition had closed last year, taking the value of the assets as we assume them to be, then the deficit ought not to be more this year than it was in the closing period. Please observe that the Government guarantee is not only towards the general exhibition, but is also a guarantee which has been given to a number of the Dominions in order to cover their expenses for coming in for the second time. So that I do not think there should be a great deficit, and I hope this will be the last deficit.
But I do ask the House to observe, that if countries like Canada, Australia and South Africa can spend millions of pounds—and I have heard it estimated that last year the exhibition at least represented £28,000,000 to £30,000,000—when we find the keen interest in the Dominions and in all the Colonies and Protectorates, and that they are prepared to put up money, the amount involved in this million odd pounds is riot, after all, too big a contribution for this country. I do not think that you can estimate the real value in pounds, shillings and pence. Last year 4,000,000 children visited the exhibition, and got a conception of what their heritage was far different from anything they could have got in the schools. You may call it sloppy sentiment if you like. You may call it false Imperialism. You may call it what you like, but I believe it is an exhibition which, in the end, will benefit the nation as a whole. I do not minimise the financial side. I do not want to have loose accountancy, or anything like that. I want to see it run in a businesslike way, but I do not think when the ultimate result of this exhibition is taken, that you will be justified in viewing it merely from the balance sheet there presented, and that possibly the real asset will be the
balance sheet of interest to generations in the future.

Sir CHARLES OMAN: I do not intend, of course, to oppose the Bill in the least, and I dissociate myself from criticism of it, but there is one point in regard to the exhibition which I wish to bring up. It is one of which, I think, my right hon. Friend is already more or less aware. There is, I think, this year going to be a slight neglect of one of the elements that made the unique character of the exhibition of last year. An exhibition does not consist merely in art shows, or in the clanging of machinery, or in panoramas and strange buildings. It also has, in intention, the object of bringing before visitors, not only from Great Britain, but all parts of the Empire, the very inspiring history of the establishment of the British Empire. That was provided for last year by the pageant, which gave enormous pleasure to those who saw it, and, I might almost say, even more pleasure to those who took part in it. There is no doubt the performers, in spite of the weather, enjoyed themselves thoroughly. But the object of the pageant was to give all visitors a chance of getting a conception of the origins and meanings of the British Empire. That, I am sorry to say, apparently, is not going to be the case this year. No doubt money was lost on the pageant, but that was, first of all, caused by the weather. As everybody who went to the pageant remembers, the weather was abominable. It was a pity to see the ladies in costumes of the time of Edward IV, with their long skirts and peak head-dresses, looking at the pools of water in which they were expected to parade.
It was not only the weather. It was still more, that the Government very rightly confiscated something like half the seats for the children of London. That was an excellent idea, but if you take away half the selling seats of an Exhibition, you cannot then complain if the exhibition does not make so much money as you expected. Clearly, the alleged deficit on the pageant was, to an enormous extent, due simply to the fact that the organisers of the pageant could not draw the money they expected, because they were compelled to set aside over half of the accommodation as free seats. Those two reasons, the weather
and the free seats, will give a sufficient explanation of the deficit. One might also, perhaps, hint at a third, that is to say, the arrangements for the pageant were not taken in hand quite early enough, and, in the first stages, were rather in amateurish hands both in the administrative and financial sections. Afterwards that was improved, and the pageant brought out by the later management was, as everyone who saw it will agree, a very great success. I think it gave many hundreds of thousands of people some conception of the very curious and varied ways in which the British Empire grew up, and, I must say, I rather regret that the Stadium, while it may be used for military tattoos, fireworks, and other displays, will not present to us again that great panorama of the origin and growth of the British Empire, which it was able to do last year.

Mr. MONTAGUE: The Secretary to the Overseas Trade Department, and also the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby (Mr. J. H. Thomas), spoke eloquently about the educational value of the Wembley Exhibition, and I do not desire in the slightest degree to say a word in opposition to that point of view, but there is one aspect of the educational work that has been done in connection with the exhibition to which I should like to draw the hon. Gentleman's attention, and that is the fact that every possible effort has been made, this year more than last year, to interest the great trade unions of the country in the exhibition and its message of Empire, and the machinery of the trade union branches is being used to induce the members of the organisations to come to London in large numbers and to visit the Wembley Exhibition. There is one point in that connection which comes to the mind of anyone who is himself associated with the trade union movement, and that is, that if the trade unionists of the country are expected to take an active interest in the progress of the exhibition, it is surely desirable that the trade unionists themselves shall not in the end be encouraged rather to boycott it because of the lack of decent trade union conditions as applying to the workers employed, either directly by the exhibition authorities or by the sub-contractors and concessionaires.
I am, like the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby, exceedingly pleased at the advance that has been made with regard to reforms in connection with sanitary accommodation and so forth. That is all to the good, and it also indicates, in spite of the Secretary's assertion that he has extremely limited powers, and that the Government have extremely limited opportunities as to labour conditions or conditions affecting the working people at the exhibition, that the mere fact that the matter has already been ventilated this year in the House has had an exceedingly good effect, and the hon. Gentlemen's influence and good offices have been used to very valuable purpose indeed. I should like, however, to point out that last year an attempt was made to form a Whitley Council, but that attempt was opposed by practically all the employers at the exhibition, and this year there is the same kind of unreasonable objection and antipathy to trade union principles being accepted in connection with the exhibition. So much is that the case that I do not think I am exaggerating if I say that there is every indication that a condition of seething discontent is being created amongst the workers, particularly in the building industry at the present moment, and in other sections of employés at the exhibition. To-day, only a few hours ago, there was a meeting at which the workers concerned objected to the opposition that was being shown to trade unionism, and to the fact that so many are being employed at low wages, which are under trade union rates, and are working beyond the trade union limit of hours. Certainly at that meeting, and in other ways also, there have been expressions of discontent, suggesting the possibility, not of an unofficial strike such as occurred last year, but of an official strike at a most inopportune moment, and I am perfectly sure that the hon. Gentleman does not desire that.

Mr. SAMUEL: I shall be glad to consider specific grievances.

Mr. MONTAGUE: I quite appreciate the hon. Gentleman's statement that he will consider specific grievances and deal with them, but I want him to do more than deal with specific grievances, because the whole principle of trade unionism is bound up in the collective action of all the workers engaged, and one of the most
important questions is not so much that of specific grievances—which I will give to him in a few moments—but of the desirability of overcoming this unhealthy and bad feeling by means of establishing a works council, as suggested by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby, so that the whole matter could be honestly and fairly faced upon Whitley Council lines, as could have been done last year in time to obviate the unofficial strike that then took place. I quite appreciate the willingness of the hon. Gentleman to deal with specific grievances, and I will give him just a few of these grievances—a few of the facts upon which the discontent of the workers at Wembley is based at the present moment.
All the way round an antipathy to trade unionism seems to be expressing itself. There is objection to representatives of trade unions concerned coming on to the Wembley grounds in order to discuss these matters with their members, and every possible obstacle is put in the way of reasonable treatment and reasonable discussion of these matters. The specific grievances to which I want to draw the attention of the Secretary are these: Messrs. Osborne, of Grafton Street, are to-day employing painters at the Palace of Industry for nine hours a day instead of eight. That extra hour is one of those things which are not of very great importance, perhaps, in themselves, but it could be obviated, and ought to be obviated, in order to keep the good will of the workers who are employed at the exhibition on the side of the nation as regards the Imperial message that has been referred to this afternoon. Messrs. Laidlaw, who are working for the Amusement Committee, are paying 1s. 3½d. and 1s. 4½d. an hour, where the standard rate is 1s. 8½d That is a direct anti-trade union position which certainly ought to be specifically dealt with by the Secretary, and every possible influence that he can bring to bear in regard to it ought to be brought to bear. Then there is a Southend firm who are doing work on the Non-Stop Railway, and who are employing cheap non-unionist labour throughout. Surely, seeing that the House of Commons is prepared to vote the sum of £1,100,000 in the form of a guarantee to the exhibition, it ought to be possible to insist upon a Fair Wages Clause being included which
would apply to the concessionaires, the Dominion employers, and so forth.
It seems to me quite idle to talk about having no power over the representatives of the Dominions. We ought to have power, if we have not got it. We are expending national money in this work, and every possible influence ought certainly to be brought to bear, and I hope that that influence will be promised before this Debate closes. The reconstruction work on Canadian buildings is done almost entirely by non-union labour, and this is causing disaffection and disagreement among the trade unionists employed at Wembley. Again, there are such pin-pricking things, which could surely be easily obviated, as that of the allowance which is made, by agreement, in certain industries, for distance—that is to say, for travelling. In this case the people are employed by a firm which sends them to Wembley to be actually engaged, in order to avoid paying the distance money which is agreed upon between the unions and the employers. Numerous little things like that occur, all of which seem to me to be quite trivial and unnecessary, and they are working against the good-will of the employés, and, therefore, against the success of the exhibition. Messrs. Greenwood, who are sub-contractors in the Amusement Park, are doing painting work by non-union labour, and, all through, contrary to trade union conditions.
These facts are supplied by the anions concerned, and I hope that action will be taken on them; but, apart from these specific grievances—and there are many more that could be brought forward—the essential point is that the men demand, and the demand is quite a reasonable one, that a works council should be appointed. That works council should be, not a works council of employers on the one side and of employés on the other, but a joint works council, where, over a table, in negotiation and friendly discussion, these grievances could be dealt with. I am sure that that is quite a reasonable proposition to make, and, as we are proposing to spend this money, I feel that the Secretary's good offices and influence should be brought to bear, so that the employers of all kinds, Dominion and otherwise, shall be encouraged and requested to adopt this principle of the works council. If that be done, a great
deal will be done to smooth the working of the exhibition, and to help to popularise it and secure its success.

Sir HARRY BRITTAIN: It is very pleasing to see that during the Debate this afternoon a tinge of optimism has crept in which was somewhat absent on the last occasion on which this subject was discussed. I whole-heartedly endorse what has been said by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby (Mr. J. H. Thomas), who is very rapidly becoming, if he has not already become, one of the Empire's very finest ambassadors, namely, that it is now just about time we began to boost this exhibition, some three or four weeks from its opening. I quite agree that criticism is expected from the House, and is, naturally, quite legitimate, but I do think it is not a bad thing if occasionally, in the midst of criticism, a little tribute is offered to those who have undertaken this immense burden and are carrying it, not for an eight-hours day, but for a day which is longer even than that of this House. I also agree with the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby-as to the amazing success of this exhibition as an exhibition. I happened to be present in different parts of the world when the preceding great exhibitions took place, and to have seen Chicago, St. Louis, Paris and San Francisco; and the whole of those exhibitions combined were not a tithe as magnificent as this one at Wembley. The right hon. Gentleman referred to the fact that, alas, the originators of this great scheme have not lived to see its fruition, and there is none the death of whom I more regret than that great Empire builder, Lord Strathcona, who was in the very forefront in the creation of this scheme. I believe that my hon. Friend the Member for Moseley (Mr. Hannon) and myself are about the only people left, at any rate in the House of Commons, who were on that first committee a good many years ago.
From the inside last year I saw something of the enormous work which was carried out by the members of the Council, and I was associated in some small way, as the representative of this House through the Empire Parliamentary Association, both in regard to hospitality and publicity, and in various other ways.
Doubtless many mistakes have been made, and estimates have been exceeded, but do not let us forget the results that have been obtained. I should like to re-echo a statement which was made a little earlier, and to express the hope that my hon Friend the Member for Balham (Sir A. Butt), whom I respect infinitely, both as a colleague and as a business man, will either take an opportunity of letting us know what he has in his mind when he talks about corruption, or that he will dismiss the subject, for it must, of course, be somewhat painful, to those who have this great exhibition in hand to hear statements of that kind put forward in this House.
I believe that there is an enormous number of potential visitors, not only throughout this country and throughout the Empire, but throughout the Continent of Europe, whom we may hope to see during the forthcoming months. During last year, throughout the Press of the world, thousands of columns of publicity were obtained at low cost, and a good many foreign journalists were brought over here by the Press Hospitality Committee, of which I had the privilege of being chairman. I cannot help thinking, however, that even more could be done. The Parliamentary Secretary mentioned that there were some 70,000 foreign visitors last year. During the last Autumn Recess I was in a good many countries abroad, and particularly in Eastern Europe, and I met many quite intelligent people who did not know that an exhibition was taking place at all. I cannot help thinking that a good deal more could be done in that way, as far as the foreign Press is concerned. The exhibition last year did not have a sum which would have been adequate thoroughly to advertise the exhibition throughout the Continental Press. I believe I am correct in saying that there was less money for advertising the British Empire Exhibition throughout the whole world than was spent in advertising one film, "The Covered Wagon." Considering the handicap, a pretty good showing was made. We never have had, and never shall have, a finer advertisement for the British Empire than this exhibition. It is the duty of Members on all sides of the House to support the Minister in his very difficult task. When the criticism is finished, let us in the few weeks that remain unite in giving him en-
couragement and helping to achieve the success that we all desire in the exhibition.

Captain GARRO-JONES: I beg to move to leave out from the word "That," to the end of the Question, and to add instead thereof the words
this House declines to give a Second Reading to a Bill which imposes an increased contingent liability on the taxpayer without providing adequate Government control over the management of the exhibition.
Nothing is more satisfying to this House than to hear the right hon. Member for Derby (Mr. Thomas) airing his imperialistic sentiments. In rising to propose the Amendment which stands in my name, it is not because I am in the least degree less enthusiastic in my imperial sentiments than the right hon. Gentleman. I find some difficulty in understanding how he comes to be such a stalwart champion of private enterprise in the management of the British Empire Exhibition. I do not know whether it can be called private enterprise, because it has all the disadvantages of private enterprise and none of the advantages of Socialism.

Mr. THOMAS: A sort of Liberalism.

Captain GARRO-JONES: If the present system is a kind of Liberalism, I do not know why the right hon. Gentleman takes it upon himsef to champion it, in view of the fact that only yesterday he was repudiating it. I have put the Amendment down for two reasons; first, in an enterprise of this magnitude it is essential in the interests of the prestige of the Empire that there should be effective management, and management free from all scandal, and, secondly, that the House of Commons should have an opportunity to demand greater information as to the way the exhibition is being con-d acted. We have had successive Ministers bringing forward proposals for guarantees. In each ease the House has only been provided with the scantiest information as to how the exhibition was to be conducted. In once case a proposal was made that we should guarantee £500,000, and the only information which was offered to the House was contained in a White Paper of 10 lines.
This is not a definite obligation, but even in the contingent obligation which this House is shouldering I have always understood that we have a right to expect
effective management, and the right to a full account of how the money is going to be expended. I regard with great interest the White Paper which accompanies the present Bill, and after reading it, I cannot quite understand the righteous indignation of the Secretary to the Overseas Trade Department with respect to the suggestion made from these benches that there has been lax accounting. On page 3 of the White Paper I find this statement:
The Government have also requested that measures should be adopted to strengthen the financial administration of the exhibition.
The Government have evidently found it necessary to strengthen the financial administration in some way, but I am at a loss to know how the financial administration of the exhibition can be strengthened. We suggest that there should be some degree of control over the way the money is spent, because it is stated in the original Bill:
Provided that it shall be made a condition of any such guarantee that the exhibition shall be conducted by an Executive Committee and a General Manager, approved by the Board, and that the Executive Committee shall furnish the Board with such information reating to the exhibition at such time and in such manner as the Board may require.
Either that means something or it means nothing. I am at a loss to see why that provision was put in the original Bill if it was not intended to give some control by the Government over the management of the exhibition. I can quite understand that the Minister is very reluctant to shoulder any responsibility for the management, because he gets all the brickbats and very little of the credit. At the present time we are entitled to question him about everything that goes on there, and unless we can have fuller information I shall attempt to press this Motion to a division. The responsibility for incurring expenditure rests, so we have been told in reply to a question, with the hoard of management, assisted by a finance and estimates committee. To what extent have we control over that finance and estimates committee? I believe we have only one representative on the committee, and his representation has not been successful in securing the proper management of the exhibition. If the Minister will give us complete and full information, and lay on the Table of
the House a document showing the organisation, responsibility and control, together with full and detailed accounts of the expenditure, the terms of the concessions given on the last occasion and the terms of the concessions given on this occasion, I shall be content not to press the Motion. I do think that the least the House can ask for is a. full statement of how the exhibition is managed.

Mr. P. HARRIS: I beg to second the Amendment.
In seconding the Amendment, one comes under the suspicion, to some extent, of crabbing the exhibition. That has been the trouble right through the exhibition. Every Minister who has been responsible for the exhibition has been very sensitive to criticism. We have been told that if we criticise the exhibition, then in some way or other we are jeopardising its success. Nevertheless, we are responsible for the finance of the exhibition in case it should fail to show a profit, and we should be failing in our duty to the country as custodians of public money if we were not very critical of the exhibition in these respects. Last year I was very severely called over the coals when I ventured to say that there was a probability of our being called upon to make good our guarantee. I was denounced from all quarters of the House as an enemy of the exhibition. I said then, but my sincerity was doubted, that I was anxious that not only should the exhibition be a success, but that it should be a credit to the Empire and to all the interests concerned.
Though we are anxious for the success of the exhibition, we have an obligation, not only in respect of our guarantee of the taxpayers' money, but also to the generous people who have guaranteed their own money. There can be no doubt that an inducement to people to finance the exhibition has been the fact of the State guarantee. I want the county to know the exact position in the present year. Last year the exhibition had a difficult time. It was handicapped by the weather, and it was handicapped in many other ways. Because the exhibition was not quite ready and many things were unfinished it did not have a fan start. Let us hope that this year it will start off with a great swing, that good weather conditions will prevail, and that
it will be completely ready for visitors. In the latter respect I would point out that the exhibition is going to have very severe competition from another exhibition; an exhibition not with the same object but one conceived on a very large scale in Paris. That fact makes it all the more necessary for us to see that the organisation is satisfactory and that the whole machinery connected with the exhibition is properly organised and ready.
Has the Secretary to the Overseas Trade Department really made up his mind what is the purpose of the exhibition? Is it a business proposition to promote trade and to bring manufacturers and buyers from all parts of the world together? If so, it is a sound purpose, especially at a time of great unemployment, so let us state that clearly as the main purpose of the exhibition. Such an object is worth the spending of a lot of money to achieve. The trouble of the Wembley Exhibition has been that two things have been mixed. On the one hand we want to get business men at the exhibition, and we want to get merchants and buyers there from all parts of the Empire to meet our manufacturers. We want the English manufacturers to buy raw material from overseas and we want the merchants from overseas to buy our manufactured goods, our machinery and textiles and the hundred and one articles displayed at the exhibition.
On the other hand, we have tried to get in the general public by organising sideshows, fireworks, shows at the stadium, and by providing great restaurants in order to get the millions from London and the provinces. Unfortunately, these interests are largely conflicting. When business men have gone to the exhibition and have tried to sell their goods, they have been largely handicapped when they have gone into the great buildings to find people looking at the exhibition, not from the point of view of business, but from the point of view of amusement and pleasure. On the Continent of Europe they have always divorced exhibitions for the general public from exhibitions for business purposes. Hon. Members know that at Leipzig, Brussels, Cologne and Frankfurt, every year great trade fairs are organised which bring business men of all kinds and interests together in order
to exchange goods and do trade. Those exhibitions for many years have been a great success in promoting trade and they have never been mixed up with an exhibition for amusement purposes.
I trust that the Minister will make up his mind whether he will use his influence in one direction or the other. I believe that if the great halls of the exhibition, where machinery, textiles and other things are shown, were limited to business people, really good trade would result. Then we could leave the rest of the exhibition for social purposes and amusement, not necessarily to the detriment of the attendance, and certainly to the advantage of trade. The Department of Overseas Trade does organise certain exhibitions for promoting industry. It has been doing that ever since the War at the White City and at the Crystal Palace. Sometimes these exhibitions have been a great success, but last year the exhibition was a failure largely, I understand, because of the competition of Wembley.
As the nation is a partner in the exhibition, we ought to be satisfied that we have adequate control over the business organisation and the finances of the whole exhibition. In that case, if in the end—I hope it may not be—the Treasury has to come to the assistance of the exhibition and make good its guarantee, we shall have the consolation of knowing that the nation has had adequate return for its money. If through the management we can be satisfied that largely increased business has been done, that our manuafacturers have received large orders and the workers have been employed as a result of the expenditure of money on the exhibition, we shall have had value for the money we have found, and we shall be getting some adequate control. But so long as the exhibition is largely a private venture we cannot have satisfaction. I agree with the Mover of the Amendment that if we can have placed on the Table of the House by the Minister a full balance-sheet, with full particulars, not only relating to last year but this year, showing the whole finances of the exhibition, the Amendment need not be pressed to a Division, and I think that the House has a great responsibility when the taxpayers' money is involved to be satisfied that there is
adequate protection of the nation's interests.

Colonel Sir ARTHUR HOLBROOK: I am sorry that the hon. Member submitted this Amendment, because it will raise some sort of idea in the public mind that this House is not unanimous in its desire to show that this great exhibition is approved by the country generally. I wish to thank the Minister for his opening remarks with regard to my own Amendment, which I shall not move upon his assurance that the complaints which I was putting forward will be remedied. I wish to call the attention of the House to the fact that manufacturers under the Public Health Act have to provide separate sanitary accommodation for persons of both sexes. No doubt last year there were great numbers of complaints in that respect. One great outstanding exception was in regard to the refreshment hall, where the staff received every accommodation and consideration, but in the early days of the exhibition last year the women who were employed at various stalls were called upon to pay £1 for a ticket of admission to lavatory accommodation, which also included accommodation in a rest-room. That amount was subsequently reduced to 12s. 6d., but the obligation rests upon the employers of these young persons at the various stalls to provide adequate accommodation for their convenience, and I was glad to head the Minister say that the authorities of the exhibition are making special arrangements to remove my objection, and I shall not therefore press my Amendment. I was concerned to hear the statement of the hon. Member opposite with regard to the fact that non-union men are employed on the exhibition. I am sure that he does not realise that these non-union men are generally ex-service men. I think that there ought to be great consideration shown by the trade unions to ex-service men so that they may get a chance of employment.

Mr. MACKINDER: Even if they are getting less than the standard wage?

Sir A. HOLBROOK: Certainly. Ex-service men have to live and the employment of ex-service men requires deep consideration on the part of the trade unions, and I always regret to find, when
ex-service men get employment, protests made against their getting some chance of earning a living.

Mr. MONTAGUE: May I point out that I made no such charge, and that I did not refer to ex-service men.

Sir A. HOLBROOK: The hon. Member complained of non-union men being employed.

Mr. MONTAGUE: I did not mention ex-service men at all.

Sir A. HOLBROOK: My information is that the non-union men employed are ex-service men. I strongly support the Secretary to the Overseas Trade Department in his desire to obtain this grant to the exhibition this year. I was one of the first to support the idea of the Empire Exhibition, because in the previous year I had been to Canada, and I came back fully impressed with the idea that our friends in that great Dominion were most anxious to have an opportunity of showing what they could produce and manufacture, and I do think that this great exhibition should not be hampered in any way by too drastic conditions. I hope sincerely that the hon. Member who submitted the Amendment will not divide the House upon it, as we do not want to create the impression abroad that there is any desire on the part of any section of this House to lessen the support which is given to this great exhibition.

Sir ALFRED BUTT: The Secretary to the Overseas Trade Department, who introduced this question, expressed the view that we could not properly appraise in terms of money the value of the British Empire Exhibition, and my right hon. Friend the Member for Derby (Mr. Thomas) was equally emphatic in asserting that point of view. I would like at the outset to associate myself with the Minister, and, I think, with every other Member of this House, in saying that the British Empire Exhibition has already done inestimable good in advertising the British Empire, and that while I may not agree as regards the accounting figures of the Minister, as to whether it cost a million pounds or two million pounds or three million pounds, I should be fully in favour of our spending that money. But surely, ashen that point is established, it does
not prevent one criticising inefficient administration. I have yet to learn that it is unpatriotic to ask for the greatest efficiency in national expenditure, and my criticism all along has been directed against inefficient management. If I may divert for one moment in regard to the figures, I may point out that the Minister the last time told us that, within a week, a balance sheet of the British Empire Exhibition would be before the Council. I am sorry that he has not referred to that balance sheet to-day, because it would be very nice to know whether the figures on the White Paper as regards capital expenditure are final, or whether, as I have reason to believe, they are likely to be, apart from the result of the exhibition this year, subject to great increase. The Minister said to-day that half a million pounds of the proposed Vote was for the purpose of the exhibition this year.

Mr. A. M. SAMUEL: The running balance sheet A, as signed on the 14th January, was laid before the management, and from that date onwards a continuous set of accounts has been made by the auditors and can be seen by the board of management at any time.

Sir A. BUTT: I am afraid that that does not answer my question. Does that balance sheet disclose that the figure of £3,900,000 on the White Paper includes the final figure for capital account, or is it r. fact that there is still a very large increment to that figure for capital account to come before this House? That is the information which I wanted to obtain from the Minister.

Mr. SAMUEL: I can only say that the total capital expenditure up to the 14th January amounted to the sum of £2,950,00.

Sir A. BUTT: I am so sorry. What I want to obtain from the Minister is this. Is there reason to believe that this White Paper includes substantially the whole of the amount of capital expenditure, or is it a fact that there is still a very large amount to be paid on capital account which, for some reason or other, is not disclosed in the White Paper or in the accounts?

Mr. SAMUEL: If I thought that there was anything undisclosed, I should not have said what I have said. The White
Paper discloses everything, as far as I know. I have no knowledge of anything else except what is on the White Paper.

Sir A. BUTT: I hope that the Minister will not think that, I would for one moment accuse him of withholding any figure from the House. I am certain that he has disclosed every figure in his possession. What I was asking him to ascertain is whether in fact, all the figures have been disclosed to him. The Minister has told us that £500,000 is allocated for the exhibition this year. I have tried to find out how he arrived at that figure, because there is a substantial sum, £700,000, to be paid, and we have in addition £150,000 owing to another Department of State in respect of Entertainments Duty. That is £850,000 out of your £1,000,000, so that it seems to me you are going to start this year with only £250,000 in hand, and I cannot help thinking that it would be better, from the point of view of the exhibition and this House, if the Minister had come down frankly and said, "We want a very much larger credit," because, as my hon. Friend below me said just now, you had last year to restrict your advertisements owing to want of funds. If we want to attract foreigners to the British Empire Exhibition it is essential to do as other countries do, and advertise largely abroad, and if you are going to start with only 50 per cent. of the capital that you anticipated for this year, then you will have to make much greater economies in consequence or you will attract far fewer people to the exhibition.
6.0 P.M.
I could at great length discuss the fact that while you have on the Council gentlemen who have undoubtedly given wonderful service to the country, unsparingly and unfailingly, we must recognise that the fundamental mistake in regard to the exhibition is the lack of showmen, and, if your Council even now would direct itself to obtaining some good showmen, I think that they might attract people not only to show them the exhibition, but also to show them the greatness of the British Empire. But the point on which I think the House will consider that I ought to say something is that referred to by my right hon. Friend the Member for Derby. He said that a statement made by me, on the occasion when this matter was before the House last, that there was a grave
scandal in connection with the exhibition and corruption in connection with the management was one which had caused the Council deep concern, and was one which he felt I should be prepared to justify. My hon. Friend the Member for Acton (Sir H. Brittain), who spoke just now, said he was satisfied that I would not have made the statement unless it was founded on facts. I can only say that I had been hoping and waiting for an opportunity, hoping that someone would approach me and ask me to give the information. I had no desire whatsoever to come down and make statements on the Floor of the House. But I feel, in justice to myself, that I now must do so. My particular accusations are, as no doubt the Minister will have anticipated, particularly in regard to what was and is the most important section of the exhibition from the point, of view of drawing the public. I refer to the amusement section. It is perfectly true that so long ago as November, 1922, I had occasion to criticise very adversely the arrangement in regard to that section. A Departmental Committee was subsequently set up, over which my right hon. Friend, the present Home Secretary, presided.

If the Minister will take time to read the verbatim report of that investigation—I am not talking about the White Paper, published afterwards, but the verbatim report, although the White Paper would satisfy me—he will see that the present Home Secretary warned the exhibition in regard to that matter. I had no reason to think that after that warning everything would not be conducted openly and in a proper manner befitting such a great project. But what do I find? I find that in 1923 a company, called the Wembley Amusements, Limited, was registered with a capital of £50,000 and £3,000 deferred shares. I suggest to the Minister that, he will be doing a great service if he will read through the list of shareholders in that company. He will see what prominent names are associated with it. If he desires that I should read them out I will do so, though it will take a great deal of time. [HON. MEMBERS: "Read them."] I find that Wembley Amusements, Limited, was registered on 16th March, and it has a capital of £53,000—R50,000 in ordinary shares and £3,000 in deferred shares. The deferred shares were allotted to W. H. McAlpine, Sir
Malcolm McAlpine, J. C. Ackermann, Warwick Brookes, and the directors were W. H. McAlpine, Sir Malcolm McAlpine, F E. M. Bussey, and a Mr. Wilson (secretary).

Sir FREDRIC WISE: Was cash paid for these shares?

Sir A. BUTT: I am coming to that point. The registered offices of the company were at 50, Pall Mall. I find on searching the files of Somerset House that up to September of last year cash was paid for the 3,300 deferred shares, but that the £50,000 of ordinary shares have never been allotted. So we have a company with deferred shares of £3,300 that has a concession apparently for the Wembley amusements. I take no exception to that. But what now happens is this. Two people by the name of Lay-cock and Bird appear on the scene. I have not been able to devote much time to Mr. Laycock's history, but Mr. Bird was a gentleman who was associated—

The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of TRADE (Sir Philip Cunliffe-Lister): May I ask one question? The hon. Member is apparently making a large number of charges against people who are not Members of this House. He has read out a number of names, saying that he was wholly dissatisfied with the way in which a certain contract was made and carried out. He read out a number of names, and said that he (lid not make any charge or have any objection to that company. If that be so, he should make it clear why he has read those names to the House, and whether he does make a charge against people who are not here.

Sir A. BUTT: I am sorry that the President of the Board of Trade is so impatient, for it is not a very pleasant thing for me to be challenged to justify a statement which I have made. It would not have been necessary for me to go into this matter at all if, perhaps, more regard had been paid to what I had said previously on this subject to Members of the House, but not within the precincts of the House itself. What I said was that, so fax as this first company was concerned, up to that point, if it had stopped there and the concession had rested with these people, I should have had no complaint
to make. That is what I said. But I was going on, when interrupted, to say this. What we find happened subsequently was that two people of the name of Laycock and Bird came along, and, whilst I know very little of Mr. Laycock's history, Mr. Bird as long ago as 1910 was mixed up with an exhibition in Vienna, and I think was arrested at least twice, when he was let out on bail and I think he had the good sense not to return. I am not quite certain what happened in the interval, but certainly during the War he was handling ordnance supplies in this country. Subsequently this gentleman went out to Rhodesia. There he bought vast tracks of land and he really became a man of great substance there. At all events everybody thought so until they asked for their money and then they were unable to obtain it, and I find that he was adjudicated a bankrupt somewhere about June or July, 1922—it may have been later.
This gentleman then came back to this country, and this vast concession in the British Empire Exhibition was apparently given to these two people. They formed a company called the Wembley Concessions, Limited, with a nominal capital of £1,000, in which they held the whole of the shares, and their registered offices are also 50, Pall Mall. So we get down to the position that there is a company with possession of capital for £1,000, which is handling a very large number of these concessions, and these are the two shareholders. What do they proceed to do? These two gentlemen proceed to form another company called the Amusement Construction Company, and this company also has a capital of £1,000. The Amusement Construction Company invites tenders from various firms all over the country to erect various buildings at the British Empire Exhibition. Various people, traders, were entitled, I suggest, to as much consideration as our Dominions and Colonies, when it is represented to them that they are working for the British Empire Exhibition. On the circulars which are sent to them the eulogies of General Smuts are quoted, and the names of people highly placed are used. Various people throughout this country constructed for the company various buildings, and when they came to ask for their money, they found that the Amusement Construction
Company bad passed on the various concerns that they had constructed to no fewer than 14 different companies.
I do not think the House wants me to weary them with the names. This mushroom company, the Amusement Construction Company, with £1,000 capital, defaults, and eventually goes into liquidation, and people all over this country have been defrauded of payment for the work that they did at the exhibition. I think it is within the knowledge of the Minister himself that a firm in his own constituency was defrauded of the money. What has happened is this: These concessions have been passed on to 12 or 14 different companies. I do not want to weary the House with the names or the lists of shareholders, but I would like to point out to the President of the Board of Trade that every one of these subsidiary companies that have taken over the concessions built by the Amusement Construction Company, which has not paid its creditors, is registered at 50, Pall Mall, and if the right hon. Gentleman will look through the list of shareholders he will find that in many of the companies the directors of the company called Wembley Amusements, Limited, also appear as shareholders. It is only fair to say that a very large number of these companies have gone into liquidation, but the grave scandal of which I complain and the scandal which I suggest that the Minister should put right, is that people to whom has been represented the importance of constructing the British Empire Exhibition as soon as possible and the patriotic and national effect of that exhibition, have been induced to give credit to a bogus company, and have not received payment for their goods.
I will give the Minister one case of a -little man who supplied £100 or £150 worth of dolls, and when he came to ask for payment the concession had been passed on to one of the other companies with its office at 50, Pall Mall, and he could not get his £100. The brokers were put in, and if good friends had not come to his help that man would have become bankrupt through trying to make the exhibition a success. I do- not think that I want to labour this matter. I hope I have given enough particulars to the Minister to justify my criticism of a grave scandal and corruption. I can only say that whilst the duty does not lie with me to be a public prosecutor on
behalf of the nation, the duty, as I conceive it, of any Member of the House is, if he feels a grave scandal has arisen and is being perpetuated in the name of the British Empire, that he should bring it before the House of Commons and before the responsible Minister. I cannot conceive why every successive Minister has wanted to hush this up, because eventually the scandal will be exposed and eventually the bill will have to be paid. When we are devoting so much money towards the British Empire Exhibition, I think we can afford to devote a little more to paying those who have been misled into giving credit to people who ought never to have been associated with the exhibition.

Mr. THOMAS: I wish to ask my hon. Friend one question. He says he wishes to know why successive Ministers responsible refused to take action on the matters he has mentioned. I desire to ask him specifically, did he acquaint the late Government, in which I took the responsibility for this matter, of these circumstances, and did he bring any of the things with which he has now dealt to my notice or to the notice of any Member of that Government?

Sir A. BUTT: It is only fair that I should say that I have never brought these facts definitely before the notice of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby (Mr. Thomas).

Colonel DAY: I suggest to the House that the reason why the Minister is asking for this colossal sum of £1,100,000 is because the exhibition since its inception has been grossly mismanaged. In fact, one could not see worse management in a small touring circus. The hon. Member for Balham (Sir A. Butt) stated that there has been a great deal of corruption in the management of the exhibition, but had he said corruption coupled with incompetence in the management he would have been nearer a solution. He also stated that the exhibition was a very grave scandal. That, to my mind, is language hardly strong enough. In my opinion, the manner in which the exhibition has been mismanaged will bring discredit upon us as a nation. If we consider the attractions of the exhibition we find that the Fun City or Amusements Park is one of the greatest attractions, but to make that portion of the exhibition
a success we must appeal to the masses, and in order to get the masses there we must have a price of admission within their reach. I, for one, favour as a price of admission the nimble sixpence without any Entertainments Duty. Many hon. Members will think that is too cheap, but we must take into consideration the hundreds of thousands of workers who live in London and its suburbs and who have never had an opportunity of visiting the exhibition on account of the price of admission. It could be safely said of the exhibition last year that it cost 1s. 6d. to go in and £1 to get out, and the prices of admission for the side shows were far beyond the means of the populace.
Many years ago the variety theatres of this country were all conducted on the "one house a night" system and high prices of admission were charged, but the managements gradually found that the theatres were not paying. The consequence was that they reduced the prices of admission and gave two performances nightly. The prices were reduced in some cases by 50 and even 75 per cent., with the result that most of those theatres which had been on the down grade became very successful and large groups of theatres were formed with popular prices of admission ranging in some cases from 2d. to 1s. and in others from 3d. to 1s. 6d. The result is that, I believe, every variety theatre in the United Kingdom is run on the "twice nightly" system, with the exception of one. All are run at cheap prices of admission, and the one exception to which I refer has also reduced its prices and is giving two performances daily.
The hon. Member for Balham referred to the question of advertising. It seems to me that there has been a conspiracy to keep the exhibition a secret. The only advertisement it got before the official opening was that which resulted from the chaotic arrangements made for the football cup final, as a result of which many thousands of people who paid for tickets could not get in, and many thousands got in who did not pay. I suggest that a large scheme of advertising should be embarked upon this year if the exhibition is to meet with any success. Another suggestion which I desire to make, and which will doubtless meet with disapproval from some hon. Members, is that the exhibition should
be open on Sundays. This would be particularly attractive to the workers and would afford a little innocent recreation on Sundays to hundreds of thousands. Surely it is no more harm for a worker to go to Wembley on Sunday to enjoy the fresh air and listen to one of our premier bands than it is for any of us to go to Kew Gardens or to Hyde Park or to ride in Rotten Row or to play golf on Sunday. I notice some hon. Members opposite smile at the suggestion. I have been on the Continent and I have seen many distinguished Members of this House at the races on Sunday afternoon. [HON. MEMBERS: "Which side of the House?"] On the opposite side of the House. Members on this side, with very few exceptions, cannot afford it. I have seen hon. Members at the Casino in Deauville round the tables on Sunday, I have seen them at theatres and music halls on Sunday, and my contention is that if Sunday amusement is good for hon. Members on the other side it is good for the workers of this country. If hon. Members opposite are able to enjoy recreation on Sunday, they should not debar the workers of this country from enjoying recreation on Sunday.
Those who have been to America know that the theatres and music halls and big amusement parks there open on Sundays. In fact, Sunday is the best night of the seek there so far as the takings are concerned. We can find an illustration nearer home. Many hon. Members are financially interested in picture palaces in this country, and they are possibly aware that picture palaces do better business on Sunday nights than on any other night in the week, and it is through Sunday opening that the majority pay dividends. In addition to providing healthy recreation for the people, Sunday opening of the exhibition would be remunerative to the exhibition authorities. I would not, however, suggest Sunday opening if it were proposed to make the exhibition employés work seven days a week. We have too many unemployed, and numbers of these could be absorbed on the seventh day of the week. If the exhibition is to be a success this year, many of last year's impositions must be done away with. One could not even take a seat at Wembley last year without paying. Every time one sat down to rest a man in uniform came along and made a charge for the privilege. Another great
injustice was that in some of the pavilions the food prices were exorbitant—in addition to which the catering was done by one firm and was a monopoly. One of the greatest disgraces and inconveniences was the inadequate and almost primitive lavatory accommodation for both public and staff. While on the question of staff, I sincerely hope the Minister will take the precaution of seeing that the staff are not employed under sweated conditions and at the disgraceful wages which some of them received last year. Ho must agree with me that many of the employés proved a terrible exhibit to visitors to the exhibition last year.
I suggest that special tickets should be issued from all local stations around London with a specially reduced fee, whatever may be the- ordinary price of admission to the exhibition. I think this would attract many more people. I should like to point out to hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite that this exhibition is a showman's job. The Minister would be well advised to consult the best showman in this country and get his assistance in the management. It is not a job for permanent officials who, with regard to the management of an exhibition, such as this, are only square pegs in round holes. I would like a little guidance before the Debate closes as to where the further balance is going to be made up from if there is a big loss, as there may be, this year. The House is entitled to this information. The estimates and the costing of the exhibition right through have been carried out in a very negligent way. The original estimate for the capital expenditure was £1,600,000, but we find that when the estimates were finally presented they were just under £3,000,000, and we have had no proper explanation of this large expenditure. We have hard slack accountancy mentioned several times to-day, and where it exists there is bound to be a huge wastage of money, which in this case would be particularly regrettable because we are now dealing with public money. I wish the Government, in a generous moment, would consider spending a sum like £1,100,000 on housing some of the people in Central Southwark who are living under intolerable and miserable conditions.
How is it proposed to make up the sum of £150,000 which is owing to the Chan-
cellor of the Exchequer for Entertainments Duty? Has any special reserve been created for this purpose, or is this account in the same position as the previous accounts presented, in regard to which no reserves were made?
Personally, I must admit that I can see no material good in carrying on this exhibition for another year, and I fear that it will be a failure. I am sorry to say that, because experience has taught people who have been in the show business all their lifetime that where a prolongation or continuation of a big showmanship undertaking is contemplated for a second year or for a further period, it always results in failure. [Interruption.] I am only telling the facts, and, if the hon. Gentleman who interrupts had had the experience that I have had, he would agree with me. I have spent my life in the business, and I am giving the House the benefit of my experience. We have always found in the show business that where a notice to discontinue has gone up, and a prolongation has been made of the same show for the following year, the show, or the undertaking, or entertainment, has always been a failure, and I sincerely hope that the British Empire Exhibition will not be a case of history repeating itself.
The hon. Gentleman mentioned on a previous occasion special precautions to act upon the Report which appeared on Command Paper No. 1799, in which it was stated that the granting of concessions for entertainments and amusements showed a lack of business acumen on the part of the authorities, having in view the seriousness of that comment, which was, of course, put in words to cover up the delinquencies in the management. The original contracts for concessions -for the exhibition were made for the year 1924, and the Minister will no doubt now have a free hand to make all fresh arrangements for the coming year, and, unless the management of the exhibition is placed on a much higher plane than the organisation of last year's exhibition, I am afraid the failure of it will be a foregone conclusion. It is particularly regrettable to see so much public money wasted, when there are so many of our fellow citizens practically starving and in want, and there is so much unemployment in the country.

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: Before I come to matters which are of more general interest and importance in relation to this great Imperial endeavour, I would like to deal specifically with the particular matter raised by the hon. Member for Balham (Sir A. Butt), and I would like to put the House, as briefly and simply as I can, in possession of the facts, so that they may see what are the powers of the Government, the powers of the board of management, the powers of the concessionnaires, and the true perspective of this matter in relation to the general undertaking. The facts with regard to the amusement contract are these: Away back in 1922 there were criticisms with regard to various matters of exhibition management, and in particular with regard to the circumstances in which the amusement contract was being negotiated between the then exhibition authorities, that is, the general council of the exhibition, and the would-be concessonnaires. The hon. Member for Balham will remember that, because he, like the gentlemen whose names he has quoted, was one of those who was tendering for these particular concessions, and he, I think, at that time brought charges against those who were responsible—not the Government, but the council of the exhibition—for negotiating the necessary contracts.
That matter, at the request of the General Council of the exhibition and of the then Secretary of State for the Colonies, the Secretary of State for India, and myself, was specifically referred to the right hon. Gentleman the present Home Secretary to investigate. The Home Secretary, who was then Parliamentary Secretary of the Overseas Trade Department, conducted a most minute investigation into the whole of these circumstances and charges, and particularly into the charges in relation to the proposed granting of an amusement contract. He gave instructions that the contract should be held up and not signed until he had fully investigated it. The result of his investigation is set out in Command Paper 1799 of 1923, and in that White Paper, in his Report, he finds specifically that the charge of corruption or mal-practice is absolutely unfounded, and, what is more, he advises, after making his investigation, that the contract—

Sir A. BUTT: As the right hon. Gentleman is quoting something in which I am concerned, if he will read paragraph 5, he will see that the Minister, making his Report, says:
Although no definite charge of corruption was made "—
There was no charge of corruption made, but of improper procedure. I specifically pointed out last Friday, not in the House, that my charges were subsequent to this White Paper.

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I am very glad. I do not want at all to misrepresent the hon. Gentleman, and I accept at once, of course, that he was not making a charge of corruption, but of improper procedure. The question that is of interest to the House is whether or not the particular contract which was made should have been made, because it is upon that contract and the rights and liabilities under it of the Government for the time being and of the board of management for the time being, that the whole quesion must rest. The specific contract which was entered into was entered into on the advice of the Home Secretary after his full investigation, and he says, in terms, in his Report, in paragraph 13:
For the reasons stated above, I therefore recommend that this contract should immediately be signed.

Sir F. WISE: Was that with the first company mentioned?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: That was the contract made with the general concessionnaires, who were the main contractors for the whole of the amusements. That contract was a contract which covered—

Sir A. BUTT: The right hon. Gentleman said he did not in any way want to misrepresent me. I think he should refer to paragraph 11.

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: Certainly, I will read it. It says:
There may obviously be nothing improper in the Exhibition staff considering throughout the negotiations that one competitor was more suitable for their purpose than others and, therefore, wishing, if possible, that he should secure the concession, but throughout the negotiations the desire of the management to give the concession in one direction apparently influenced them to assist this particular competitor as far as possible. In this connection, too, I would paint out that had
it not been for the: subsequent entry of other competitors all offer from this competitor would admittedly have been accepted at or about the end of September on terms less advantageous to the Exhibition than those ultimately offered from the same source.
He goes on:
I have carefully considered the offer whose acceptance was ultimately recommended, and I am impressed by the fact that one of the critics, who was also a competitor, informed me that lie was of the opinion that this offer in its final form was the most advantageous contract which the Exhibition authorities were likely to get, providing only that the contract was properly drawn, that a substantial guarantee was obtained, and that the technical Sub-Committee continued in existence to see that the contract was properly carried out.
He went on to say that he wished to have it held up in order that he might not only approve generally the terms of the contract, but that he might—being not only a very good administrator and politician, but also a practical lawyer—himself see that the contract was so drawn as to give effect precisely to the terms to which it was intended to give effect. That was the contract which was made. That was the contract which gave the full right to alt the amusements, not only for that year, but for the succeeding year, if the exhibition was carried on for another year. Therefore we arrive at this position, that as between the governing body of the exhibition and the general concessionnaires, as I may call them, a binding contract covering the whole of the exhibition amusements, not only for the last year, but for the coming year, was entered into.

Major CRAWFURD: Was that contract made with the knowledge and approval of any representative of the Government?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: If I may say so with respect, if the hon. and gallant Member would listen to my speech—I do not think I have been more than usually muddle-headed in what I have said—I have told him that that contract, the circumstances attending it, the terms of the contract, indeed, the actual legal wording of the contract, were investigated, approved and recommended by the present Home Secretary, who was then Parliamentary Secretary of the Overseas Trade Department, appointed to investigate the matter. I have said that before, but I do not want to be under any misunderstanding, and if I am
not plain, I shall be glad to explain further. Therefore, it is clear that there is no charge of corruption made either against the Government in conducting their inquiry, of course, or against the original Committee of Management, of which my right hon. Friend and his colleagues are the successors, or against—

Sir F. WISE: The Executive Committee were not charged?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: —or against the Executive Committee—no charge against them, and no charge against the concessionnaires who took the main contract.

Sir A BUTT: I am sorry again to interrupt, but I made it very clear at the start that I did not charge any member of this Government or the preceding Government with, in any way whatever, bring concerned, and I made myself very clear that I felt that the executive council and the whole of the committee were equally ignorant and quite irresponsible, but I endeavoured to make it clear that it was a curious coincidence that the Wembley Amusement Company, to which the right hon. Gentleman has referred, that had the first concession, ultimately became shareholders, in an individual capacity, in several of these other companies, so that I cannot go beyond that.

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I see.

Sir A. BUTT: And I want the right hon. Gentleman to recognise that fact.

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I am not going to impute more to the hon. Member than he desires, but having made charges and brought the whole of this, that I must say—and I shall say why in a moment—is a very minor matter in the great conception of this exhibition, having thought fit to mention a number of names, and to raise this in Debate on this Bill, he must not complain if I try to make abundantly plain exactly what is the responsibility either of the Government or of the governing body at that time or of the succeeding governing body.

Sir A. BUTT: Hear, hear!

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: Those concessionnaires, the main concessionnaires, then, as I understand it, entered into a number of sub-contracts with various
other persons, among whom were these persons, Laycock and Bird, if not in their own names, then under noms de guerre. Let us, however, remember that between the exhibition authorities, the executive council, who later devolved their functions upon the board of management, and Laycock and Bird the sub-contractors, there was no privity of contract whatever, and the rights, therefore, of the board of management are entirely limited by the terms of the contract with the main concessionnaires, which merely gave them the right formally to approve contracts made by the latter with sub-concessionnaires. They have no rights, as they have no obligations, and never had in law outside that particular contract.
Now let us pursue this a step further. What happened? I have made as close an investigation as I can, and I gather that what happened is this: that the Amusements Construction Company which was formed by Laycock and Bird, who figure in a number of these subsidiary companies, some of which appear to have been profitable and some appear not to have been profitable, and are being wound up, appears to have entered into contracts with different persons to supply it with goods, these goods being passed on to the various subsidiary companies, and in some cases the subsidiary companies failed to pay, being in liquidation and laving no means of paying. I want to be careful in what I say in regard to this matter, because it may very well be made the subject of legal proceedings, certainly in the Civil Court, and possibly in other Courts as well. I hope the House will not think that I am making any sort or kind of excuse for Laycock and Bird, but I do not want to pronounce judgment in a matter on which certainly the Courts will ultimately have to pronounce it. Some of these companies are in liquidation, and there can be no possible question that if in the winding up of these companies, through the regular machinery of the Courts which is now taking place, anything transpires that can properly form the subject of criminal proceedings, those proceedings will unquestionably be taken, and the law will be administered in the proper way.
It would obviously be wrong on my part in a matter which to-day is
sub judice, and in which the Public Prosecutor may take part ultimately, to pronounce any opinion one way or another. I want to say two other things in regard to this matter. The first thing is that I hope the House will not look at this thing in a way that is out of proportion. If a disgraceful thing has been done, and if some man has been quite wrongly kept out of his money, has not only made a bad bargain, but has not been paid either in circumstances in which undoubtedly he ought to have been paid, or even in circumstances where there may be no legal obligation, but where there is a very strong moral obligation, I will say nothing to defend the other party, any more than anybody would dream of defending a man who had picked pockets at Wembley itself. Supposing you had such a scandal. It might well have happened that a thing of that kind took place, but it is no more fair to seek to challenge the governing body of the exhibition for what may or may not have been done by Laycock and Bird, with whom there was no privity of contract, and over whom they had no rights and could have no rights—it is no more proper to challenge the governing body, either directly or by implication, than it would be to challenge them because somebody's pocket was picked at the exhibition.
Therefore, let us view this matter in its proper perspective, both in relation to the governing body, who are doing really very great work, and have continuously done it, have undertaken a tremendous labour and done it in a most disinterested way, and—whatever to the contrary may be said—in a. very businesslike way. Do not let us take it out of its true perspective. This incident, unpleasant as it may be, and whatever it may lead to, or whatever steps may be ultimately taken—let us view it in its true perspective. It is not fair to charge a great Imperial enterprise either with inefficiency or with corruption because there happens to have been something take place such as we have heard of. Some things may be, if you like, open to grievous censure, but I am bound to say that I think, perhaps, it would have been viewing it in a more accurate perspective if the hon. Member had satisfied himself that all the steps which could by law be taken, either by the governing body or the Government were being taken. That
is, however, a matter of opinion and a matter of taste. He referred to my hon. Friend the Secretary, Department of Overseas Trade, and wondered as to what had happened in a particular case. He said there had been somebody in his constituency who had suffered in this matter. It is quite true; and in justice to my hon. Friend and the hon. Gentleman opposite the Member for Rothwell (Mr. Lunn), who was then a member of the Government, I think it right to tell the House what my hon. Friend did. My hon. Friend had a constituent who lost his money by making a contract of this kind. An investigation of the circumstances took place, and my hon. Friend thought, and felt, that his constituent was being very badly treated. He went at once—as I think it was quite proper to do, if I may say so—to the hon. Member for Bothwell who then occupied the position which he himself now holds, and put the facts of the case before him. The hon. Gentleman the Member for Rothwell went into the matter, and found that the legal position as between the exhibition authorities and these persons was exactly as I have described it to the House. He satisfied himself, as plainly was the case, that neither the Government nor the governing body of the exhibition could by any executive action enforce the claim of my hon. Friend in this matter. He satisfied himself that the companies which went into liquidation would be wound up, and that all the usual sequence would be followed. My hon. Friend, I say, satisfied himself that the necessary action so far as it could be taken was being taken. I think, possibly—if I may say so with great respect to the House—that action was just as likely to be effective in the interests of the people affected as any other action, and, certainly, rather more in the interests of the success of this great Imperial enterprise. Anyway, the House, I am sure, will rest assured that whatever the proper process of law is, it will be followed to the full without fear or favour, and I am sure this matter will not be allowed to be taken out of its true perspective, or that we shall minimise the success which everybody desires should attend this exhibition. So much for that matter. As it was raised in detail I have felt bound to deal with it in the same way.
I pass from that to one or two other points, very briefly, that were raised My right hon. Friend the Member for West Swansea (Mr. Runciman) complained again that past Estimates have been exceeded. I do not want to go over the ground again. That complaint was answered on a previous occasion. The increased capital expenditure was due to more Dominions coming in, to the tremendously wet weather, and also to the fact, which my right hon. Friend the Member for Derby (Mr. Thomas) referred to, that not only during the time of construction but during the time the enterprise was open the weather was as inclement as it possibly could be. He said that we could not claim an educative value a second time from the attendance of people, whether adults, or young persons, or children, going to see an Imperial exhibition. Even assuming that it is all the same people who go to see it for a second time, whether old or young—and I do not think it will be, though I think many others who went before will repeat their experience, I am sure the right hon. Gentleman who believes eternal verities never alter, and that the more often you can inculcate them the better for humanity, really would not say that there is not an educative value in seeing the same thing again: in seeing the exhibition twice.
The right hon. Gentleman then asked: Can you guarantee that this is the last time you will have to come to this House for money? My answer to that is: We have made an estimate in the light of past experience, and that estimate we regard as a conservative—and when I say that I do not mean liberal—but a conservative estimate, and I have every reason to hope that it will work out well. All the House is being asked to do is to give a Second Reading to this Bill, which asks the Government to guarantee a further sum of £500,000 in respect to the year that is past, and another £500,000 in respect of this year. The House is not in the least committing itself to giving any further guarantees. Let me put it in another way: Hon. Gentlemen here who are bankers must have had cases brought before them in which they have been asked for a loan or for an overdraft. The banker, after hearing the financial position of the applicant, says: "We will guarantee you an overdraft of so much."
That does not in least commit the bank to any further help if the estimate stated by the applicant happens to be falsified. Therefore, while we have made the best estimate we can, and, as we believe on the right side, and we trust that with success, we shall realise this year more than the minimum necessary to avoid a deficit by giving the Bill its Second Reading and by passing it, the House is not committed to anything more than is there set out.
Everyone wants to be assured that this is going to be a success, an administrative and financial success, and you cannot do better to insure that than by doing two things. First of all, by trying to help the exhibition on its way, and secondly, by refraining from suggestions that either there should be dual management—partly the board of management and partly the Government—or that the Government should take over some form of overriding control. The Board of Management is well known. Its great services are well known. It consists of influential people who have rendered great services. I am quite certain that even if the Government were to try to run this business it could not select better men to do it. I am certain if you took any guarantor outside this House and said: "Will you give your guarantee either if the Board of Management continues to run this or the Government takes it over, or there is a joint management," the guarantor would say: "For the love of Heaven, do not let the Government come in, let the people whom we are putting our money on carry on the business." What is more, such a man would say, if the Government does come into this business and demands control or assumes participation in the control; "The terms of our guarantee go by the board, and we will withdraw our guarantee." Therefore, I sincerely hope that that suggestion will not be made any more.
7.0 P.M.
There is only one other thing to which I would refer, and that is the point made by the hon. Member for West Islington (Mr. Montague) with regard to co-operation with the trade unions. In the
first place, let me say that the management, for the reasons I have given, must, of course, rest with the board of mnaagement. It cannot rest with the Govern-
ment. We must make up our minds either that we are going to back the management which is there, which is the only body that can manage this, or that we are not in this business at all. As regards contractual obligations, you can-rot vary contracts which have been agreed to with different sub-contractors, but I am told that actually, in all its dealings, the board of management itself, with regard to all the people it employs directly, has observed completely the Fair Wages Clause. I am assured that in at least one contract the Fair Wages Clause exists. As I say, you cannot vary a contract which has been made, but let me add this. The board of management contains my right hon. Friend the Member for Derby, and I am sure it has at heart trade union sentiments.

Mr. MONTAGUE: What I said was that there was an evident feeling of antipathy to trade unionism among the contractors, and that that was having a very bad effect on the workmen.

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I have already pointed out to the hon. Member that the board of management cannot vary contracts they have made, or they will have them thrown back on their hands. If there is a provision for fare wages in a contract—as I am advised there is—they can enforce it, and insist on it being carried out. If there is any contract in which it happens that that Clause is not in, they cannon act; but in all their actions as direct employers I am advised they do carry out. the Fair Wages Clause, and I am quite sure, in connection with the board of management, the personnel of which is known to the House, that in connection with anything they do directly, and in connection with anything which they can do in practice indirectly, every effort will be made to obtain the fairest possible conditions. I think it is plain from the examples which were used by my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary of the Overseas Trade Department, that as regards better arrangements for rest rooms, new canteens and so on, a great effort is being made in that direction.

Mr. MONTAGUE: I would like just to put the one specific question to which I have referred, and to ask whether it would not be a very great point if the Government, whatever their actual power
of interference may be, showed their own feeling in favour of the appointment of a wages council. I am quite sure if that, were done nine-tenths of the difficulties would disappear. Will the right hon. Gentleman do that?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I think it is a matter for the board of management to consider. I am perfectly prepared to put my faith in the board of management. The right hon. Member for Derby is on it, Nothing could be more unwise than for this House to try, either directly or indirectly, to take the management out of the hands of the board of management.

Mr. MONTAGUE: They can suggest a condition.

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I had much better be frank about this matter. You may pile up one condition after another, but you have to see that the country has got confidence in that board of management. They have a very difficult job to do, and really you cannot separate the financial and the administrative control. I must ask the House to place their confidence in this board of management, by reason of its past work and by reason of the reputation of its members. There is no board of management which has a better personnel. Whether it is in details of administration, or whether it is in regard to questions of principle, or whether it is in details of finance, I ask the House once and for all to put their trust in that board of management, to back that board of management in its work, and to give a guarantee which I think the country expects the. Government to give, and to concentrate on really trying to make this the success which we can make it if we all put our backs into it.

Mr. MACKINDER: I am very sorry that the President of the Board of Trade can offer us no more in this Debate than the Government offered us in the Debate which took place last week. I want to carry the Minister back to a question which was asked this afternoon, namely, if he will take every precaution to see that the persons employed at the British Empire Exhibition of 1925 will receive wages which will allow them a proper standard of living. II am sorry to say that both the President of the Board of Trade and the Parliamentary Secretary of the Overseas Trade Department ignored that
question at Question time, and did not answer it, and could offer no hope that they would see that the people employed there got a standard rate of wage which would enable them to have a decent standard of living. When a supplementary question was put to-day, the Parliamentary Secretary of the Overseas Trade Department asked me if I would repeat it to-night in the Debate. I have sat here for three hours waiting to repeat it, and I intend to press it as far as I possibly can right through the whole of the passage of this Bill, until we get satisfaction or are defeated.
I have been speaking to an hon. Member of this House who understands something about the Board of Trade and Treasury, and he informs me that 10 or 15 years ago the Treasury instituted a practice that where any Government money was spent or lent, the principle of the Fair Wages Clause should be imposed, I want to ask why the principle of the Fair Wages Clause has not been instituted in this direction. It is no use the Government throwing the responsibility en to the management committee. If the Government are going to spend millions of pounds of the public money and not have any authority as to how the employes in any particular industry are to be treated, for my part, and I say it on behalf of a number of Members on this side of the House, I do not agree with that policy.
Everybody knows that last year the catering contract was given to a firm which some people would call respectable, but which some people on this side would not call respectable, especially with regard to the wages that they are paying. It is a well-known fact that in the City of London some of the best firms in the catering trade—and this is not one of the best—pay their waitresses as low as 13s. a week, with a bonus of another 4s. in the way of commission on sales. Do hon. Members agree—and does the right hon. Member (Sir P. Cunliffe-Lister) who spoke last agree—that a sum of 17s. a week is enough for a young girl on which to keep her reputation and her sense of decency and honour? What we are asking the Secretary to do is to see that some provision is made that the girls employed in the catering department shall, at all events, have a decent subsistence on which to live. If the Government are going to guarantee these millions of pounds, at all
events, it ought to see that the place is sweet and clean so far as our girls are concerned when they go to work in those places.
I went to Wembley, along with other hon. Members, last year, and on one occasion I purposely went to the Popular Café to see how the girls were getting on. [Laughter.] I do not usually joke when speaking of girls of my class. Other people may do so, but I do not. I think if I were to make a joke upon the girls of their class other hon. Members would resent it just as much as I resent their making jokes on girls of my class. I went to see how their work affected them, and frankly I was sorry for them, to see how they were working on a hot summer day with the crowds with which they had to contend, and on the miserable wages and the miserable food they were getting. It may have been a credit to a firm in the City who wanted to make big profits, but it certainly was not a credit to the British Empire, and it certainly was not very pleasing to our overseas visitors who visited the exhibition to see how some of these girls were paid. The position is they have no trade union to defend them. They have no Trade Board to defend them. They are absolutely at the mercy of any employer who wants to sweat them down to the lowest possible wage that he can. Will the Secretary kindly inform us who are the caterers this year? I have been trying to get to know, but I cannot find out. If we could get to know the caterers I should be very happy to bring to this House information as to what wages these caterers pay their girls, and to see then if the House of Commons does agree with the miserable wages which are being paid in this kind of industry.
I want to press upon the Secretary one matter. It will not take long, but I want to impress it upon him, and unless we get some satisfaction to-night, we shall go on impressing it. upon him. It is that a works committee 'should be appointed. We know that last year, owing to the dissatisfaction which was expressed, the Empire. Exhibition nearly did not open in time. We want to avoid those things in the future. I want to see a works committee appointed with representatives on it of the contractors, of the concessionaires, and also of the workpeople. I am one of those who think that it is much
better to find machinery to avoid disputes than to provide machinery to settle disputes when they arise. If the Under-Secretary will not make it obligatory that a works committee representative of all sections of industry at the exhibition shall be appointed, I shall be sorry, because the Government will not have done their best to help those people who cannot defend themselves. After all, they are only girls, but they are our girls, and they are not receiving good wages, and they are not receiving sufficient food, and I hope the Under-Secretary will do all that he can to see that a committee is set up. I want an assurance, I do not want a nod of the head, and a passing of it on to the Executive Committee, and, if we do not get that assurance, we shall press the matter further.

Sir ROBERT HAMILTON: I desire to refer shortly to one aspect of the matter to which I think insufficient attention has so far been given. I will say at once that it is hard to calculate the value of the exhibition in money terms—I will not refer to that any further—but when we come down to the actual finances, seeing that this is not our money, but the taxpayers' money, we remain under the obligation of looking very closely into them. I have been through the Estimates presented in the White Paper as carefully as I can, and, if the figures on which they are based are anywhere near correct, we should, and I hope we shall, with good fortune in the weather, come our fairly successfully at the close of the exhibition in 1925. The point I want to make is that I want to have it clearly from the Minister in charge that he will not come to the House for another guarantee. If the exhibition authorities know they can come for another guarantee, they are not going to take the same care over the finances as they would otherwise do. Therefore, I would like the Minister in charge to let it be known publicly that there is sufficient money for running the exhibition satisfactorily and as it should be run in 1925, and that he will not come to the House for another guarantee.

Mr. A. V. ALEXANDER: I wish to put one point to the President of the Board of Trade or the Parliamentary Secretary in regard to the question of the Fair Wages Clause raised by my hon. Friends on these benches. We brought forward a similar principle on
the Sugar Subsidy Bill, and we had occasion to thank the Minister of Agriculture for the very great consideration shown in that matter. Although the circumstances of this case may not be quite analogous, a great deal of the same principle is involved. The House is asked to vote public money or public credit for an undertaking in which a large number of people are employed. When we were asked to vote a subsidy the other day, the Minister of Agriculture inserted a Clause in the Bill under which, in the event of any dispute with regard to wages, he undertook to refer the dispute to an Industrial Court, and it was laid down in the Bill that when the Industrial Court had given its award, that award would be an implied contract between the employed persons and the employer, so that legal proceedings could be taken by an employed person or by his union to ensure that the prescribed wages were paid. I do not wish to delay the House, and I will only ask whoever is going to reply to give us an assurance that between now and the Committee stage he will examine the matter from that point of view, and see whether in Committee upstairs he could give us a Clause to deal with the Fair Wages question on a similar basis to the one given by the Minister of Agriculture.

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: There is all the difference in the world, as I am sure the hon. Member will realise, between a position in which the making of contracts lies ahead, when none of your contracts are made, and the present situation. In the former case it is quite possible to have a Clause such as my right hon. Friend accepted, and to put it in all future contracts. The position here is that all the contracts are now running. You cannot alter contracts which are running except by agreement with the other party to the contract, who could then ask for a reopening of the contract, and might wish to put in other terms. The position, therefore, is absolutely different. I did consider very carefully whether it was possible to do anything more in this matter—I went very, very carefully into it—but for the reason I have stated it really is impossible to do what is now asked. All one can do is to give the assurance I have already given to the House, and I am informed that the
governing body are, in fact, carrying out the fair wages undertaking in every possible way.

Sir JOHN MARRIOTT: I want to say only one or two sentences in support of the plea put forward by my hon. Friend the junior Member for the University of Oxford (Sir C. Oman). He put forward a very strong plea for a reconsideration of the educational side of the exhibition. I am sorry the name of the President of the Board of Education does not appear on the Bill, because, from my point of view, the exhibition is primarily an educational exhibition. It was used to my personal advantage—[Laughter]—to my personal knowledge. I am perfectly prepared to accept the correction. It was used to my personal advantage from the point of view of education, and I believe to the personal advantage of almost every other Member of the House. I am glad that the slip occurred. It is within my knowledge that the exhibition was an enormous advantage to multitudes of children who were brought up from the provinces, and the advantages were enormously enhanced by the pageant, the success of which was largely due to my hon. Friend the junior Member for the University of Oxford. if the Parliamentary Secretary is going to reply to this Debate, I would like him to give the House an assurance that that matter will not be neglected. For my own part, I am willing and ready a hundred times to vote this guarantee, for I believe that money was never better spent than on last year's exhibition, and I gladly vote for a renewal and an extension of the guarantee.

Orders of the Day — FORESTRY BILL.

Order for Second Beading read.

The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Guinness): I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."
The object of this Bill is to increase the number of Forestry Commissioners from eight, who hold office at present, to 10,
the change being necessary owing to the increase of work brought about by the resumption of the programme of afforestation laid down in the Acland Committee's Report, and also by the responsibility for the Crown woods having been transferred to the Forestry Commission under an Act passed a few years ago. These Crown woods include a good deal of matured timber in the New Forest, the Forest of Dean, and other places, and therefore involve a new class of problem not previously before the Forestry Commission, which has been dealing primarily with planting and with young plantations. The Crown land which has been transferred to them in connection with this new administration of the Crown woods amounts to no less than 120,000 acres. It is necessary to increase the number of Commissioners for this reason also, that it is advisable that, just as the Acland Committee included representatives of all political parties, the Forestry Commission should have that same advantage.
The hon. Member for Wellingborough (Mr. Cove) has been appointed to this Commission in anticipation of the passing of this Bill, Sir John Stirling-Maxwell, who was one of the Scottish Commissioners, having resigned to make a vacancy. The interests of Scotland are not suffering meanwhile, because Sir John Stirling-Maxwell, though he can no longer act as the second of the two Commissioners, to which Scotland is entitled under the original Act of 1919, is acting still in an advisory capacity. If the Bill passes Sir John Stirling-Maxwell will be appointed to one of the new vacancies, and it is not proposed to fill the place of the tenth Commissioner just at present. It is thought better to wait a little before appointing the logging expert who will be necessary before very long in connection with these Crown forests. The House will note that no increase of expenditure is involved in this Bill, the new Commissioners being unpaid. The Bill does not add to the existing powers of the Forestry Commission to pay three, and three only, of their number. I hope the House will allow this little Measure to pass, because I believe it is necessary for the greater efficiency of the working of the Forestry Commission, and it is based on the experience they have now had of five years under the new system.

Mr. JOHNSTON: I beg to move, to leave out from the word "That," to the end of the Question, and to add instead thereof the words
this House declines to assent to the Second Reading of a Bill to authorise an increase in the number of members of a Commission which, in the exercise of its powers and duties of promoting the interests of forestry, developing afforestation, and organising the production and supply of timber, is not responsible to Parliament.
I am at a loss to understand why this Bill should have been brought forward at all. The last sentence which the right hon. Gentleman has just addressed to the House indicated that the five years' appointment which the eight Commissioners have held is now about up.

Mr. GUINNESS: They have been reappointed.

Mr. JOHNSTON: At any rate the five years' term of office is about up. Sir John Stirling Maxwell, one of the ablest of the Commissioners, resigned office in order to allow one of the Members on the Labour Benches to be appointed a Forestry Commissioner, and after they had got the Member for Wellingborough (Mr. Cove) to accept they came forward with this Measure to extend the number of Forestry Commissioners, and it has been brought forward for no other purpose whatever than to allow Sir John Stirling Maxwell to be appointed. I do not understand the motive for this, but I think we ought to take this opportunity to have a full dress Debate upon the whole question of the relationship between the Forestry Commissioners and the Government of the day.
We have no desire to cramp the operations of the Forestry Commissioners. On the contrary, I wish they would extend their operations. I would like to see the operations of afforestation in this country extending at a very much more rapid rate. My objection is fundamentally to the nomination of some eight or 10 gentlemen for a period of five years, and handing over to those gentlemen sums of money approaching to £500,000 and giving them practically the uncontrolled spending of that money without the Government of the day or any Minister on the Treasury Bench being responsible to this House for those operations. That is the worst form of Syndicalism. I do not care who the Commissioners may be, but I believe it is
good policy that public money which is spent should be regularly and persistently under the control of this House, and it is bad public policy to hand over £500,000 or any other sum to a group of nominated gentlemen like this to spend as they may choose.
I have heard it said that we have some control over this money, and that the Treasury have a form of control. At present this House has no control whatever over this expenditure. We may put questions to the Prime Minister or anybody else in regard to this business of afforestation, but the answer is given to us by a back bencher, who may or may not /-e a Member of the party in power. It happens at the moment that the back bencher who is a member of the Forestry Commission is a Member of the party in power, but during the last Government the back bencher who spoke for the Forestry Commissioners was not even a Member of the party in power.
I for one take the strongest possible exception to a continuance of this syndicalist method of spending public money. When the Bill for the nationalisation of mines was introduced last year all sections of our opponents in this House fell upon it horse, foot, and artillery, because there was to be a number of commissioners appointed who ere miners. In this case you have appointed eight gentlemen as Commissioners, only one of whom is not a landowner. They may be none the worse for that, but the fact remains that objection is taken to any measure proposed for giving power to sections of the working class to control their own affairs, and I cannot see how the hon. Gentleman can get up and justify a system under which eight gentlemen are to be allowed to spend this money.
The Act gives them most extraordinary powers. Under the Act of 1919 they may purchase or lease land, erect buildings as they think fit, and they may sell or exchange any land; they may purchase or otherwise acquire standing timber and sell to a private owner; and they may make grants and allowances on such conditions and terms as they think fit to private individuals. They actually may grant public money as they think fit to their fellow landlords in Scotland and England, and all this without the control of this House, and no question can be
satisfactorily raised in this House in regard to those operations.
I take further exception to this Bill because of the fact that a proper system of afforestation must go hand in hand with a proper system of land settlement. It is absolutely stupid to hand over half a million of money to a group of men outside this House, and say to them: "There you are; go and spend this money on afforestation." May I point out that there are three or four other Departments concerned with the business of land settlement, and these Departments are often found in competition for the possession of the same land and they do not need to consult one another before either Department spend money on the purchase of land.
My objection to this Bill is not met by the appointment of the hon. Member for Wellingborough or any other hon. Member on these benches. If you make all the Commissioners members of the Labour party my objection would still be the same. I speak without any feeling on this matter. I was asked during the last Government to become a Forestry Commissioner, and the Government got a member of the Forestry Commission to resign to allow me to be nominated, but I regarded it as a bit of an insult that my mouth was to be shut by being offered an appointment as a Forestry Commissioner. What I protest against is the fact that a number of nominated gentlemen outside this House are to be allowed to spend public money without somebody being directly responsible to this House through a Minister of the Crown. Of course, I feel considerable difficulty in criticising the technical efforts of the Forestry Commission. Many of those Commissioners have forgotten more about forestry than I have ever learned. I am ready to admit that they are absolutely disinterested, but I do say that this House is charged with the business of land settlement and the repatriation of people to the soil, and we cannot expect to have a proper repatriation of the people carried out by a handful of landlords who are more or less hostile to that policy.
What are the facts in relation to other countries? You have in Germany 270,000 workers getting employment on the State forests full time, and no less than 47 per cent. of those men are small holders who
spend half the year getting wages from the State forests and the other half upon their small-holdings. That makes their small-holdings economic and enables them to live economically upon a system of rural food growing, which increases in Germany while it steadily decreases here. In Bavaria alone there are 74,662 workers employed in forestry, and in India from 5,000,000 to 6,000,000. In this country you have some 2,000 men engaged in afforestation on full time work at a time when we are importing £62,000,000 of timber from abroad, most of which we could grow at home.
Instead of pursuing this policy, we are steadily driving the people from the soil and they are not allowed to have small holdings. Our afforestation schemes very largely take the form of buying up estates, some of them covered with scrub, and not suitable for small holdings at all. The Royal Commission on Afforestation reported in 1919 that there was 9,000,000 acres capable of afforestation, and 5,000,000 of that total were in Scotland. That Commission recommended the afforestation of 150,000 acres annually, and they said this would give temporary employment during the winter months to 18,000 men, and that it would incidentally give subsidiary occupation to over 18,000 people; making a total of 36,000 men in all. They also said that it would give permanent employment to one man for every 100 acres of afforestation, rising to 90,000 men permanently employed when the scheme was completed. Of course, that total makes no allowance for the lumbering business, saw milling, the wood pulping industry, and the paper industry, all of which would grow as your afforestation scheme developed. Without taking these facts into consideration, every 100 acres employs 12 men to afforest. If we afforested 1,000,000 acres we should be employing 120,000 men permanently in a healthy occupation and in an economical and profitable employment, and after 80 years the State would have a property worth £562,000,000 upon figures, or a profit of £107,000,000 over the cost incurred by the State, after paying 3 per cent. compound interest on all the expenditure from the day the scheme was initiated.
Instead of some attempt being made to repatriate the people on the soil,
instead of some huge scheme of afforestation which would employ men in the-rural districts, relieve the unemployed market, and stop the drain to the town, and the perpetual emigration of people to Canada, some of them sent to grow timber; instead of that we have had a haphazard, timorous, half-hearted policy by successive Governments. I spent some considerable time last autumn going down to some of these afforestation schemes, I went, for example, to Inverliever. Before the scheme was adopted only 16 men were employed as shepherds. Now there are 47 on full time, and there is said to be a scheme for 10 smallholders. When cuttings begin 30 to 40 extra will be employed, houses will require to be built, roads will require to be made, and saw mills and pulp mills will require to be put up, and it was the considered opinion of the men I talked to on the spot that 107 men would be employed full time against the 16 previously employed. On the other hand there were accusations that many estates were being afforested which ought not to be afforested at all. Lands which ought to have been used for small holdings merely attached to forests were themselves being afforested. That particularly was the claim made for the estate of Duror. I have here a statement made by an authority whom the right hon. Gentleman, I am sure, will not dispute. Sir John Stirling-Maxwell gave a lecture, which was afterwards re-pub lished in pamphlet form, entitled "The place of Forestry in the Economic Development of Scotland." On page 14 he discusses the question of unemployment. That is what the Forestry Commision do not do. I defy the right hon. Gentleman to tell me where, in their annual report, there is any reference to the most important subject of the number of men employed on these schemes pre-war. The only incidental reference is when he comes to the extra money that is spent on unemployment where there are, I think, about 58,000 men weeks, or roughly full-time employment for 1,000 men. Outside that there is no reference to the number of men employed in our afforestation schemes. Here is what Sir John Stirling-Maxwell says:
Let me give you the details of a small German forest in the Spessart. They come to me at first hand. This forest extends to 10,000 acres and attached to it are about 3,000 acres of agricultural land. This area
of 13,000 acres would, in the Highlands of Scotland, compose one small deer forest, or a couple of fairly large sheep farms. As a couple of sheep farms it would support two tenants and, at most, 13 shepherds, or 15 families in all. Divided among a number of smaller tenants it might, following our former calculations, support at most some 60 families. In Germany the population is as follows. The permanent staff of the forest consists of a head forester and clerk and six forest guards and 10 unskilled workmen. 25 other men find employment all the year round as contractors. There is thus permanent employment for 43 men. In addition to these 80 woodcutters are employed for six months and 70 women and children are employed for about two months on nursery, planting and other light work. There are also 260 men employed in forest industries. The forest with its industries is thus giving constant employment to 303 men besides the 80 men employed for six months and the 70 women and children occasionally employed. The total population of the area affected by the forest is 2,500. It is calculated that 1,520 of them are directly dependent on the forest. The remaining inhabitants are small tradesmen—saddlers, smiths, etc.—or people employed in small agricultural industries, and many of them are indirectly dependent upon the forest and the work it brings to the district.
1,520 people directly dependent upon this small forest in Germany as against what we should have in the Highlands of Scotland, 13 families. Whatever view one may take about rural economy, this kind of thing cannot be justified any longer. The best life-blood of our people is being slowly drained away. The healthiest, the brawniest and the best types are being driven beyond the seas. Farmers, graziers, shepherds decrease census after census. The only increase in the rural population of Scotland is that of gamekeepers—an increase of 1,673 between 1881 and 1911. Whereas farmers and graziers decreased by 4,505, shepherds by 1,229, and farm servants by 49,420, but—lift up our hearts—gamekeepers rose by 1,673.
Let me give one or two further points. Perhaps when a brighter and better day comes the right hon. Gentleman will be ready with some more sympathetic statement on behalf of the Government.

Mr. SPEAKER: I have Lot interfered with the hon. Member. I think he is quite entitled to give illustrations to make good what I understand is his purpose, that instead of increasing the number of Forestry Commissioners, the whole of them should be put under the direct control of this House. That is the con
tention contained in his Amendment, and reasonable illustration in support of that is quite permissible, but I do not think he ought to go too widely into the whole question of afforestation when it is really a question of eight Commissioners or 10.

Mr. JOHNSTON: I quite appreciate the fact that you, Sir, have allowed me very considerable latitude upon the Amendment, but I am sure it will suit the convenience of the House that we should have full latitude on this occasion when we do not get it once in five years. I am seeking to show the Treasury Bench that it would make for good social economy and for the absorption of numbers of the unemployed in the healthiest possible occupation, that it would make for the better social use of our land if instead of merely proposing to add to the number of Forestry Commissioners, and to proceed in the old-fashioned, timorous, half-hearted and useless way, they adopted my Amendment to recast the whole policy and bring afforestation under the direct control of the House. But I will not stray far from the Amendment. In places where they set out to develop afforestation in this country, where they have had a dim perception perhaps of increasing the number of small land holdings, they have done exceedingly well. At a place in Herefordshire, for example, Snobden, where they had 1,800 plantable acres, there was no employment at all when the Forestry Commissioners took it over. The place was derelict in 1921. There are now 53 men getting full-time employment.
At Downham, in Suffolk, where there were 5,000 acres, overrun by rabbits, completely out of cultivation, the cottages were unoccupied, and there were only six men getting a livelihood in the whole place, there are now five farms let, because the rabbits have been cleared off, 21 cottages occupied, and 22 men are employed in the summer, and 100 in winter. The same kind of thing happens in Scotland. At Inchnacardoch, in Invernessshire, in 1921, 4,000 plantable acres were taken over. There were only five men employed. Now there are 35. I press very strongly, first, that it is bad public policy that public money should be spent without the control of the House, and secondly, that the Government ought to make such arrangements as will enable those of us who believe that through
afforestation and the re-settlement of the people on the soil we shall do more to alleviate unemployment than by any other means to have an opportunity at Question Time of putting our questions not to a back bencher, who may or may not be in sympathy with Government policy, but directly to a Minister of the Crown, who ought to be responsible for the spending of this new and growing sum of public money—and I hope it will grow. I trust it will be one of the largest spending Departments, and I hope to see the day when either this Government or the Government that follows it will see fit to appoint a Minister of Land, who shall be charged with the duty not only of afforestation, but of land settlement, controlling our land system, making the best possible social use we can of our land, and not, as we have now, a haphazard control through half a dozen different Departments, and a Department such as we are discussing to-night over which we have no control at all.

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: I beg to second the Amendment.
8.0 P.M.
If I need any new argument in favour of it I think the right hon. Gentleman gave it when he moved the Second Reading. He told us the reason for the Bill was the increase in the amount of work that has recently fallen upon the Commissioners, owing first of all to the Act of 1923, when the Crown Woods were taken over by the Commissioners, which brought with them some 120,000 extra acres of land. He went on to say there was a good deal of mature timber which would have to be disposed of in the very near future, and the increase in the number of Commissioners was due to the extra amount of work which would be involved in the disposal of this mature timber. It seems to me that if we have a large quantity of mature timber ready for sale to private individuals or firms, the least this or any other Government might expect is that they should have some control over the prices at which the timber should be sold. I remember fell well the statement made by Mr Acland in dealing with this question of forestry on 4th June last. In referring to the question of the Commissioners being, as it were, free agents to operate just as they wish apart, from any particular Department, he made this
reference to the control that the Treasury have over the Commissioners of Forestry. He said first of all they could expend the amount of money that was placed at the disposal of the Commissioners, or they could refuse to allocate suitable sums to allow the development of afforestation to go on. But he said they do more. He said they control the wages that we can pay to 8.0 P.M. these men who work for the Commissioners in agricultural areas, and they actually restrict us from paying any better wages than those that are paid to agricultural workers in that particular district. It seems to me, that if that is the only control the Treasury have over these Commissioners, it is not sufficient, and we ought not to be content until the Commission is brought inside one Government Department, where the Minister for that Department will be responsible for the administration of the work under the Commissioners, and will, of course, respond to questions that will undoubtedly be submitted from time to time. It is fair to say, of course, that the Commissioners have done something during the past four or five years, and one could not disagree with a good deal of the work that they have put in. But, as the hon. Member for Dundee (Mr. Johnston) truly stated, the least we might say is that suspicion is aroused when, of eight men who are Commissioners, not less than, seven of them happen to be landowners; and in the work they are performing we ought to commend them for the splendid business abilities they appear to have displayed in some of the land purchases they have made. I gather from the 1922–23 Report that, on, the whole, the price they have paid for land purchase. for afforestation reaches about £2 17s. 6d. per acre. But there is another side to their administration which seems to me to call for some little comment. On page 28 of the 1922–23 Report, under the heading "Operations on Properties belonging to Corporate Bodies and Private Individuals," there appear these words:
Expenditure took the form of grants for planting (up to £4 10s. per acre to corporate bodies and up to £3 per acre to private individuals).
So that they buy land for £2 17s. 6d. per acre, but they give £3 an acre to private individuals for planting, and, presumably, after they have paid the £3,
they have nothing further to say so far as that particular land is concerned. The Report goes on:
preparation of ground to be planted subsequently (up to £3 per acre in each case).
That is to say, the Commissioners are paying £3 per acre to private individuals to clear their own land before they can commence to plant trees therein. That leaves something to be desired, and I think we are entitled to expect that some individual in this House should be made responsible for replying to questions, and for meeting criticism from time to time, It may be said that there is a good deal to be said in favour of the present Commission; that if they are not controlled by a Department, their work will be of a continuous nature, they will be enjoying a policy of continuity, and since, in this work, a continuous programme is the essence of good business, it would be folly to place them in the realm of politics, which is always a very moveable quantity. That may be all right from that particular point of view, but from the opposite point of view it seems to me there are so many objections to the present state of affairs, that we ought to press forward until the Commissioners are brought under a Department and made responsible to the House of Commons. After all, the Commission have got almost unlimited powers. They can rent land, they can buy land, they can lease land or they can sell the timber. They can do every one of a thousand different things under the direction of the 1919 Act, and if we look at the 1922–23 Report again, we find what is known as the Acland Report, on which, I think, the 1919 Bill was largely based, showing the figures of the developments over a period of years according to the terms of the Acland Report, and the figures of actual work taken in hand.

The Acland Report suggested that, from 1919 down to 1923, they ought to lease over that period 35,600 acres, and they ought to purchase 88,000 acres. What have the Commissioners done?—and Mr. Acland happens to be one of the Commissioners, and this is one of the questions we ought to be able to submit in the House of Commons, but which we are prevented from submitting because there happens to be no direct representative of the Commissioners here.
Instead of leasing 35,600 acres over a period of four years, they have actually leased 91,000 acres; and, instead of purchasing 88,000 acres, according to the Acland Report, they have only purchased 29,500 acres. I should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman in charge of this Bill if he does not think we are entitled to have some information on such important points as these. The Commissioners who drew up the Acland Report make a report on which, subsequently, a Bill is based, but when they commence to operate under the terms of the Act, we find that they do the very opposite from what is actually laid down in this Report. Further, they not only lease them instead of purchasing, but they give to private owners of land £3 per acre, either for clearing or planting, when they can buy land, and have bought land, at £2 17s. 6d. per acre. It is perfectly true to say that one member of the Commission must be a Member of the House of Commons, but, as the Mover of the Amendment rightly says, he may be a member of any one of the three parties, or he may be an independent Member, but, worse still, he can refuse to be in the House to reply to any questions at all. He can be unfortunate enough to be ill for a long period, during which time the House of Commons can get no answers to any questions that may be submitted. On the other hand, he may deliberately remain away from the House, thereby refusing to give the House any information at all.

For those reasons, I submit, very respectfully, that notwithstanding any good work the Commission may have done, it is not sufficient to allow such an important question as this to be left entirely in the hands of eight or ten people who are not attached to the House of Commons. I well remember the Debate on the 4th June of last year, when the then Prime Minister, who had had time to look into this question, intimated to the House that it was the intention of the then Government to introduce a Bill at a suitable moment which would couple the question of land development with that of afforestation, and bring both these Departments under one Ministry, who would be responsible to the House of Commons. I think the ex-Minister of Agriculture also agreed that if this Commission were allowed to continue their good work, they must do
so under one or other of the various Departments whose Minister would be responsible to this House for the administration.

The importance, already emphasised by the hon. Member for Dundee, can be further emphasised if we examine very closely this Report of 1922–23, in which we find that a delegation was sent to the Empire Forestry Conference that took place in Canada in 1922. I think they did a wonderful amount of good when they attended that conference. They ascertained, at all events, what was the Empire position so far as soft wood is concerned, and this country is largely dependent upon imported timber for a thousand industrial purposes. They gathered the information from the Empire Forestry Conference that not only had America denuded her own woodlands, but she was fast helping Canada to denude hers, and, unless we did something on Empire lines, the chances were we should be as dependent upon some foreign countries for soft wood as we are upon foreign countries for oil at this particular moment. When the delegates returned, what was the first thing they did? This, I submit, is very important indeed to this House. When the delegation returned from Canada, the first thing they did was to report to the Government, who were at that moment taking part in the Imperial Economic Conference. Various recommendations of the Forestry Commission made to the Imperial Economic Conference were approved by the then Government, and embodied, I believe, in the proposals that came out of that conference.

Here is a Commission who are not responsible to the House of Commons at all. They are operating in a semi-detached form. They are buying land, they are selling land, they are renting land, they are spending money in various ways and they are attending Empire Forestry Conferences in Canada and elsewhere. They are coming back home, and, without consulting the Government at all, they are making recommendations to an Imperial Economic Conference, and pledging this House of Commons, without the Members having a single word to say. If only for these reasons, I respectfully submit to the House that, instead of electing two more Commissioners, we ought to bring the Forestry Commission under one De
partment, which would be reponsible to this House. Then we should not have the Treasury sometimes retarding and sometimes inspiring, but we should have a definite Ministry responsible for inspiring the Commissioners, for seeing that the work was done, and for doing much more in this direction than has ever been done up to this moment.

It being a Quarter-past Eight of the Clock, further Proceeding was postponed without Question put, pursuant to Standing Order No. 4.

Orders of the Day — ACCIDENTS IN MINES.

Mr. GEORGE HIRST: I beg to move,
That this House deplores the heavy loss of life and the large number of non-fatal accidents in mines, and is of opinion that every possible step should be taken without delay, whether by legislation or otherwise, in order to secure the fullest protection possible to those engaged in this dangerous industry.
Hon. Members will see that the wording of my Motion has been somewhat altered as compared with the wording which appeared on the Order Paper this morning. Before proceeding further, I should like to express my thanks to the hon. Member for Bodmin (Mr. Harrison) for kindly standing aside as regards his Motion, which stands first on the Order Paper, and allowing me to move this, the second Motion on the Paper.
Before speaking on the Motion, I should like to make sympathetic reference to the deplorable accident which has occurred in the Scotswood mine in Northumberland. Everyone will deplore that accident, and it is not that only this one accident has occurred, but these accidents occur year after year and month after month. Hon. Members will see from the newspapers today that it is supposed that in this disaster between 30 and 40 men and boys have been entombed in the mine, and anyone who has followed mining throughout his life, as I have done, having worked in the mines for 16½ years and having worked in and about the mines for 40 years, can readily understand what is taking place round the mouth of that pit at the present time. We are told in the Press reports that men, women and children have been standing round the mouth of this pit ever since the disaster
occurred, waiting to see whether they can learn something of their loved ones who are entombed in the pit. According to the Press reports it is very unlikely that any of these entombed people will be got out alive.
I have been going into the statistics with regard to accidents for the last 20 years, including explosions and disasters of this description, and I find that the death-roll from such disasters has amounted, since 1901, to 1,955 lives that have been lost. That figure, however, only relates to disasters where the death roll has been 10 and over, but there are dozens of disasters of this description which only involve the lives of one, two, three, or four, up to eight or nine, and those would probably add more than 1,000 to the 1955. I have taken out the accident figures for the years 1920 to 1924, and I find, in the first place, that in those five years the fatal and non-fatal accidents have been accumulating all along the line. Instead of legislation being introduced with a view to reducing the number of fatal and non-fatal accidents in pits, no legislation has been introduced, and, as a consequence, the number of accidents has steadily risen year by year.
Perhaps it will be as well to give the figures for fatal accidents, including explosions. In 1920 there were 1,103 fatal accidents in Great Britain. In 1921 we had a lock-out extending for about four months, but even then the death-roll was 756. In 1922 we had a still higher death-roll than in 1920, namely, 1,105; and in 1923 it was still further increased to 1,297; while in the Report for 1924 we find that the death-roll was 1,293. Therefore, during these five years, including 1921, when we had a four-months' lock-out, the total number of fatal accidents that occurred in the mines was 5,554. When one conies to consider a death-roll of that extent, one sees the necessity of bringing the matter before the notice of this House to an even greater extent than has been done in the past. I find that the last time this Motion was introduced in the House, namely, in 1923, it was moved by the hon. Member for Abertillery (Mr. Barker), and it was carried after a Debate which lasted from 8.15 until 11 o'clock. But we find that nothing whatever has been done to
carry into effect that decision of the House in 1923, over two years ago.
Dealing now with the non-fatal accidents which have occurred in the same period, from 1920 to 1924, we find that the non-fatal accidents in 1920 were 116,930. In 1921, when there was a period of four months during which no work was done, owing to the lock-out, we find that the non-fatal accidents were 86,145. In 1922 there was a great increase, the number being 185,115. In 1923, the figure was still higher, namely, 211,598; and in 1924 it was 211,610. That means that during those five years the non-fatal accidents numbered 811,298. One cannot realise, simply by hearing of these accidents which come to our knowledge day by day, the number of fatal and nonfatal accidents in the mines. One has to gc through the statistics as they are compiled year by year. These 811,298 nonfatal accidents are only those cases in which the men who were injured were off work for seven days or more. If we took the minor accidents, where a man is off work for two, three, four, five or six days, we should find that the number would be more than doubled.
In my opinion this is a very important Debate, because we are asked from time to time whether something can be done to improve the Coal Mines Regulation Act with a view to minimising accidents. We say that one respect in which an improvement could be made would be to have shafts sunk nearer together than they are at the present time. At present as far as travelling underground is concerned, there is nothing in the Act to stop any colliery company from going any distance they think fit, whether it be one, two, three or four miles underground, without having extra shafts sunk. We say that, if the shafts were more numerous than they are at present, that would to a certain extent prevent explosions and also accidents, both fatal and non-fatal, to those working at the coal face. It would have a tendency to prolong the life of the miner and make his occupation more healthy. There would be better ventilation if we had shafts sunk more frequently than is the case at present, and there would be less accumulation of coal dust, which has a tendency to contribute to these terrible disasters that we have to suffer from time to time On the other hand, we find that the
biggest total Of accidents arises from falls of roofs and from falls of sides. We say that if our suggestion is carried out there would be a tremendous length of road which we should be able to cut off, and, therefore, there would be no accidents in the districts that we should be able to close.
I know that there are plenty of mine-owners in this country who are studying this thing at the present time. I believe the matter has been brought before a Committee. If we could only keep more of the rubbish which is coming out of the pit at the present time in the pit gob, and stored in the gobs and in the old gates that are turned off from time to time, there is no doubt that we should be able to minimise the accidents that take place. That would have a tendency to do away with many of the falls which take place, and it would have a tendency to do away with the dangerous places where men and boys have to travel to the coal face. Further than that, the pony drivers who are taking the tubs to the men working at the coal face would be safeguarded. It would have a tendency to alleviate or minimise the accidents in mines which are taking place to such a terrible extent at the present time.
After the Sankey Commission, after all the evidence had been taken from all the experts that it was possible to find, Mr. Justice Sankey in his Report stated that the present system of mining stands condemned, and that something else should take its place. Nothing has been done as far as the Governments have been concerned since 1919, when the Sankey Commission reported, up to the present time. The Report of the Sankey Commission was simply read when it was placed on the Table of the House of Commons. We maintain that the Government ought to take action as speedily as possible with reference to improving the Coal Mines Acts of this country, with a view to doing something as a preventative to accidents. A Compensation Bill was introduced a week or two ago, but you cannot pay adequate compensation for the loss of the valuable lives of breadwinners, who have lost their lives through causes which might be minimised to a very great extent. We do not know whether the coalowners are carrying out the Clauses in the Acts in their entirety, but someone ought to know.
Someone ought to try to get to know whether the Clauses in the Coal Mines Acts are being carried out.
Take Clause 21, with reference to the abandoned mines. That Clause states that plans should be placed in the hands of the Secretary of State three months after the abandonment of any workings of mines where the pits are closed, so that the people who are working coal and working the barrier up to the abandoned mine can have some idea as to how far they are crossing these old workings, which may be filled with water or other liquid. On the other hand, you have Clause 68 which states that as far as approaching old workings are concerned, instead of taking the old face of the coal, when you are within 40 yards of it, you shall drive up a bord, or a narrow head, eight feet wide, and that in the centre of this eight feet heading you put in a bore hole of not less that five yards, and keep that in advance of the working of the coal. That is in a straight-face heading. Then you are to put in two flank bore holes, one on each side, of not less than five yards, so that you will have some idea when you are approaching the old workings.
We want to know, when this inquiry takes place, whether these rules are being carried out in their entirety. If this rule is carried out, and you put a small bore hole five yards in advance of your working base, no inrush of water or accumulation of gas can burst through five yards of coal. It appears that when a man was working on the coal face and he struck the face with his pick, the water suddenly burst through, with the result that it gave the people in the workings not the slightest chance of escape. I hope that whilst this matter is being debated the Government will take some steps to improve the Coal Mines Regulation Acts of this country, so that we shall be able to minimise to a great extent the accidents that occur in the mines from time to time.

Mr. GRUNDY: I beg to second the Motion.
I should like to associate myself with the thanks that my hon. Friend gave to the hon. Member for Bodmin (Mr. Harrison) for kindly allowing this Debate to take place. It is taking place under the shadow of a very great sorrow. I am sure that all Members will send forth their
sympathy to the relatives of those who are entombed in the pit in Northumberland. That accident has added to the necessity for this Motion. This Motion has been put down for many years. Whenever the mining Members have had an opportunity by the luck of the ballot, they have never missed that opportunity. One well remembers on the last occasion when the hon. Member for Abertillery (Mr. Barker) moved this Motion, and how he eloquently appealed to the House, strengthened with all the facts and figures which were available at that time.
I will not attempt to quote the figures that have been given by my hon. Friend to-night, with the exception of the figures for the last two years. I quote them in order to draw attention to the magnitude of the figures. In 1923, we lost in fatal accidents 1,297 lives., and we had of nonfatal accidents 211,598. I would ask the House to grasp the meaning of these stupendous figures, and to visualise, if they can, the amount of sorrow, pain and suffering that has been brought to the members of our industry. In 1924, we lost 1,127 lives. I have not the figures respecting the non-fatal accidents for last year. These figures require consideration. I am not trying to bring in any recriminations. I am trying, if possible, to put forward such a case as will impress upon the Government the fact that something must be done, whether by inquiry, legislation, or regulation, to deal with this great question.
The time is opportune for some attempt to be made to lessen the number of mining accidents. It is a public duty which we owe not only to the miners, but to the whole of the working classes of this country, that this appalling record should be made known, and public attention directed to the astounding figures of the mining accidents. I would ask hon. Members who have never been at an explosion to try to picture the scenes at the pithead. The last occasion on which I visited a pithead in connection with an explosion was at the Maltby disaster in July, 1923, when 27 men were hurled into eternity. Twenty-six bodies in that mine have not yet been recovered, and probably never will be. If Members could see the sights at that pithead they would all be determined that whatever could be done should be done at once to minimise these accidents. I was there, and if I were
to go into the question of pleading, which I am not going to do—I say that we demand this as a right—if I were to take you into that pit office when the first rescue party came out, that had striven with all their might to get at the entombed men, you would agree with what I say. They had been in the pit office less than a quarter of an hour when the expert engineers gave a definite time for another explosion, yet those men said that a second attempt must be made to reach their comrades. You may talk about heroism. It was not confined to any one class. There was no braver man than the managing director, but every man in that office wanted to go down. The party was made up, and they went again to face what appeared to be certain death.
I merely mention that to draw attention to the class of men with whom we are dealing. There is no class of men in Great. Britain that faces such hardships and dangers and that shows greater courage in the face of great calamities. If it was only for the fibre of the men this House ought to give some consideration to this question of how to minimise the number of accidents. I will not deal with the Redding pit. I am sore that some of the men from districts close by will refer to it, as I am sure that the Member for the district where the present calamity has occurred will deal with that matter. But there is one point which I wish to impress upon the Secretary for mines. We had an accident at the Nunnery pit. It was not reported as a great accident, because there were only seven men killed, though there were 50 men injured. It was caused by the breakage of a rope in a- pit-, when the men were being taken to their work. We found at the inquiry that there was no period of life for a rope in this mine, no period when a change should be made. They could use a rope, as, indeed, after evidence, was shown to have been done in the case of that rope, until it broke. I. would ask the Secretary for Mines to at least make a note of this, because it may become more in use for the taking of the men in and for bringing them from the face. When they get their long working day the men are exhausted with a long walk, and all up-to-date managers in our mines to-day try their level beet to carry the men up to the face, and to bring them back in that way. So there
is great reason for taking into consideration as to whether there should not be a period of life to a rope, so that we may avoid accidents such as I have to describe.
There are other matters with regard to such things as the boreholes, and we should like to be quite sure that all proper precautions are taken. Then there is the question of the deputies, firemen, or overmen, as they are called in the various localities. We call them firemen, or deputies, in Yorkshire, and we should like to be certain that these men, while seeing that a man sets his props in accordance with the distance allowed, and does everything which is prescribed by the Act of 1911, do always give a true and faithful report I made that statement at a meeting which was attended largely by deputies. I said, speaking from my experience of going into the mines as a lad, and working at the pit, it was my opinion that in many pits the deputies did not give a fair report. Let me say for the deputies that they told me in language more forcible than polite that it was not true, but it is a very strange thing that I have had letters from representatives of the Deputies' Association asking that they be engaged by the State, which would lay down their qualifications, and that they should be paid by the State, so that they could give unreserved and thoroughly honest reports as to the state of the mines as they find them. I am only putting the point: Are you perfectly sure that these men do give a faithful, honest report in respect of the state of some of our mines? I do not put this in any sense as something derogatory to the deputies. I know something about the conditions of labour, and these men are very similar to other men. They have their livelihood at stake, but it is a question whether or not, in the interest of the safety of the men in the pit, these men ought not to be separated from the manager and the employer, so that they may, if any instance of danger occurs, be able to give an honest and faithful report.
I want also to put this point. Have we sufficient mining inspectors who have had practical experience at the coal face? I contend that we ought to appoint inspectors who have had not less than five years' practical experience at the coal face. There is good in knocking about
the roads as an education in the pit, but the real experience gained at the coal face is the thing that it is necessary for every inspector to have. I ask the Minister to take note of the suggestion. The great and growing mortality in the industry points to the fact that the time has come when the men themselves should have a greater control of the industry. It may be said that when the 1920 Act was being discussed we refused Part II, which would have given us some control in the mines. The world moves, and it is to be hoped that we progress with it, and I think the time has come when reconsideration ought to be given by the Department to the suggestion that the miners should have some share in the control of the industry. The figures given by the president of the Miners' Federation of Great Britain bring more vividly before the country than I can do the toll of accidents in the mines. The number of men killed in 1923 could be stated in this way—that on every day the pit worked five men were killed, and that every five hours by the clock a life was lost. There were 211,000 workers injured in that year. They were non-fatal accidents and the men concerned were absent from work for more than seven days. Every working day in the pits 580 were injured. The statement goes further and is put in a way that I think would appeal to any man. It always appeals to us miners because we have been down the pits and we know. The statement says:
Marshalled in a procession, four abreast and 1½ yards apart, the procession of injured would be 45 miles long, and in the procession every 15 yards there would be an ambulance with an injured worker in it, and every 61 yards a hearse containing a dead comrade.
In face of the figures that have been given, I ask the Secretary for Mines to consider whether something cannot be done in the way that I have attempted to describe, by inquiry, by legislation or by Regulation, to lessen this growing mortality in the mines, and so to prove that, while on many occasions we have felt that the House of Commons has not dealt fairly with the miners—far from it—at least in this matter some consideration is to be given to our case.

Mr. WARNE: I want, to make a few observations on the Resolution, and particularly to try to be somewhat
helpful in the position to-day, having in mind the fact that a sad calamity has happened in my constituency, an accident which I am sure has touched the hearts and sympathies of the whole House. I am one of those who believe that the Mines Act as it now exists, if properly applied, will remove many of these sad fatalities that occur year after year. I am sure that the Mines Act, 1911, was a big step forward in mines regulations. It was based upon the experience of the mining industry in years preceding that date. In any reference that I make to the sad fatality that has just happened, I do not want to be taken as prejudging the situation. An inquiry will be held, and it will bring out the facts as far as is possible, and when the facts are known action may be taken to prevent the recurrence of such accidents. To-day I went into the Library and read the evidence taken by the Commission that was set up in 1905 to inquire into accidents in mines. I found in the Commission's Report something which may be helpful, and as justification of the statement I have made that if the Mines Act, 1911, were properly applied many of these accidents would not occur.
The individual accidents that mount up into their thousands do not seem to grip the conscience of the country like, the explosions and the terrible floodings of pits which carry 40, 50, 100 and sometimes 300 men into eternity. As far as this House is concerned, I might be called the last man out, for I left the coal face only two and a half years ago. The miner is quite prepared to take risks in his work. He is driven on because he wants to make a wage sufficient to keep his wife and bairns in decency. He sees his mates killed one by one as the years go by, and he somewhat accepts the view that even in the best regulated industries accidents of that kind must happen. But what the miner does not like is to be caught like a rat in a trap through flooding or explosion which he thinks is due to the neglect of duty by someone else. I find that the Commission, although the subject was not specially referred to them, went into the question of accurate plans being kept, as far as the colliery workings are concerned, and proper surveys on which those plans were based. They found that many of these actions had occurred where accurate plans had not been kept.
We know that 50 or 60 years ago the status, technical skill, and scientific knowledge of the mining surveyor was nothing like what it is to-day. The Commission to which I refer found that sometimes mere amateurs were put on to draw up these plans. I wish to state that to-day, at any rate, that cannot be said about the staff surveyors. This is how the matter appears to that Commission. They say
As regards the risk of accidents, the need for accuracy is most apparent when a mine is being worked in the neighbourhood of other workings, more especially old workings which have been abandoned for some years and are likely to be full of water or to contain an accumulation of gas.
9.0 P.M.
They were then referring to the necessity for keeping accurate plans, and I am sure the House will see how important this matter is. The evidence which the Commission took showed that in January, 1893, in the Wheal Owler Tin Mine in Cornwall, 20 lives were lost through an inrush of water. An inquiry was held and it was found that the accident occurred because the plans had been based upon an inaccurate survey. In December, 1895, in the Dungannon Colliery in Ireland, there was an inrush of water, and six lives were lost. The water broke through a barrier between the mine and some old workings, and again in this case the plans were found to be inaccurate. In January, 1895, at Audley in Staffordshire, 77 lives were lost through flooding from old workings, and again the plans were found to have been inaccurate. On 9th December, 1896, the River Level Colliery at Abernant, in South Wales, was subjected to an inrush of water from another colliery, and six men were drowned. Again the plans were misleading, and it was found that the coal had been worked by one colliery beyond their legal boundary, and when the workings of the other colliery reached that point there was the inrush of water which cost the lives of six[HON, MEMBERS "A very common thing!"] Yes, a very common thing in the mining industry, and I know in my own experience a number of cases where mine-owners on one side of a royalty have been so greedy because there was a good seam of coal that they have worked into the royalty of another mine-owner. Roadways and all necessary preparations may have been made in the other mine on a Saturday in readiness to start work on Monday morning only
to find that the rival company had already got all the coal out. These things lead to accidents, and they should not take place. In December, 1902, in the Deep Navigation Colliery, Parkend, they had an inrush of water, and four lives were lost, and on 26th January, 1906, just after the Commission was appointed, there was in the Caradog Vale Colliery, Glamorganshire, an inrush of water from old workings, and the inquiry revealed that the plans were wholly unreliable. The point to which I am working is that it is on this evidence the Commissoners based their recommendation that something should be embodied in the new Mines Regulation Act—the Act of 1911—dealing with this matter. Section after section appears in the Mines Act relating to this question and I desire the Secretary for Mines to see whether these requirements are being complied with. In Section 19 9.0 P.M. we find notices are required of opening and abandonment of mines which is very important to the mining industry. Section 21 lays down that there is an obligation upon the mineowner or manager to see that plans of abandoned mines are deposited with the Mines Department. Sections 19, 20, 21 and 22 all deal with the question of the plans of abandoned mines being properly recorded, and I am not satisfied that we have not suffered, and are not suffering, with regard to the accidents which I have just recounted and those which have happened since the Report of the Commission down to the accident of Monday morning last, owing to the fact that these things have not been properly recorded. I am satisfied that danger is looming in many thousands of cases and it is urgent that the matter should be raised. In this very same district I find there have been mining operations since 1649. The whole place is honeycombed with old mines and, close to the very pit into which this inrush of water has taken place, I find, from the records in the Library, that Denton Old Colliery was worked more than a hundred years ago, the old plan having been deposited in the Crown Office as far back as 1803. I wonder if that is where the water was lying which has, unfortunately, burst out and taken 38 comrades of ours into eternity. We cannot bring these men back, but we can see that all the powers
in the Mines Act are exercised, and it is for the Secretary for Mines to see that his Inspectorate is kept on the alert. There should be no waiting for accidents to happen, but the inspectors should investigate the dangers which they think may be looming ahead.

It was left to the County of Northumberland to mayke that terrible sacrifice which is known in the history of the mining industry as the Hartley misfortune, in the year 1862, when about 243 men and lads were trapped in a pit because the beam of the pumping engine had fallen down and closed the shaft, and there was no other outlet for them. The sacrifice then made meant a blessing to the miners of the future, because provision was made that two shafts—two outlets—should always be provided. May I hope that the sacrifice that these men have made may be compensated for in that something will be done in order to prevent such a calamity overtaking any other miners living at the present time or those who are to come in the future? My suggestion is that the Departmental Committee which is already inquiring into these waterlogged areas should be speeded up by the Secretary for Mines, and when their Report is in hand the Secretary for Mines should put his inspectorate on—and if the inspectorate is not large enough for the purpose it should be increased—so as to have all these old mining areas properly explored and surveyed in order that the present colliery companies working them and the miners may know exactly where this terrible danger of flooded pits are liable to arise. If they do that, I am satisfied that this House will have lone its duty, and it is because I feel that one is doing the only thing one can possibly do that I urge the Secretary for Mines, now that we all feel so deeply that there should be 38 men and boys lying in a pit—and we do not know whether or not their bodies will ever be recovered, because we have men in the county of Northumberland who were overtaken by an inrush of water similar to this, whose bodies are still in the bowels of the earth—that something should be done in order to reduce as far as possible this terrible sacrifice that is going on year by year in the mining industry.

Major CLIFTON BROWN: I rise to associate myself with what the hon. Member for Wansbeck (Mr. Warne) has
just said, as a fellow Northumbrian Member, in regard to our sympathy for the relatives of those who have lost their lives in the mine. I want to deal for a moment with this accident, and to say a word about the owners, because I think that in many ways this was a very unfortunate occurrence with these particular owners. They are not of the usual getrich-quick type; they are an old family concern, and have looked after their men well This pit, although it was not an easy one to work, had been kept on, giving employment during the recent slump, and I know perfectly well that they would not have spared any money, if there was any question of saving any of the lives of their men to be considered. One of the partners in this Montague Colliery happens to be an officer under my command, and therefore I know the family from start to finish. I wired him to-day, when I heard of the accident, to see if there was any news to be had, and if the House will allow me, I would like just to read a short telegram recording the sympathy which I know they feel. It is as follows:
Directors and Benson family express their deep regret at the loss of valuable lives in the accident at Montague Colliery, and tender their deepest sympathy to the relatives of those caught by the inrush of water. Every effort, humanly possible, is being made to win a way into the workings.
I am afraid that last sentence carries very little hope, because, although they and the men with them, working all to gether, are doing their best to win a way, I am afraid there is no chance now. May I deal for a moment with one question which, I am afraid, is really out of order, but a great many people throughout the country are always very anxious to know what happens to pit ponies in these accidents. Could the Secretary for Mines tell us when he replies? I pre-slime that the pit ponies are perfectly safe, but we should like an assurance on that point.
May I deal now with the subject generally? First of all, I am not a miner, and my ignorance, really, is deplorable. I live in a mining district, and every day, though I take a great interest in the miners whom I represent, I really feel ashamed of myself, because I do not know more about them than I do. I have been down their mines, and I know a certain amount, but what I
have to say will appear to be absolute A B C to those who know, but please remember that there are a great many people in our country who have never had the advantage of living near mines, and certainly do not know even the beginnings of the A B C, and I think, therefore, if a few elementary remarks can be made by me, it may be of some assistance to them. The great feature about the mining industry, to my mind, is that the mine owner has to take a great deal of responsibility, and his decisions very often carry with them the lives of men. The mining industry is one in which men have to face death very often. I know very well how it felt in France when one had to go over the top; one felt just like a pawn in others' hands. Later on, I had to give some orders myself, and I am not quite sure, thinking back now, whether it was not easier to go over the top than to give those orders. One knew that those orders carried with them the lives of men, and one thought every way to see whether, by some safeguard or other, one could not save the lives of the men under one.
That is true of the mining industry to a large extent. There was a late Member of this House, a recent Member for Durham, who died. I was talking to him one night, and he was very worried. He told me that the trouble with his pit was—or one of them—that if he went in for some kind of development work, he might make a great success of it—it might be financially a very good thing—but he was very afraid indeed, in spite of the mining regulations and everything else, that there might be a disaster if he carried on his concern. As a matter of fact, he did not carry it on. He made up his mind that he would not risk the lives of his men, but there is always the difficult problem, from the directing point of view, that if you do not sometimes run risks, the mine may close down, and you may throw a great number of your men out of work.
I leave that to come to some of the fatal accidents. The hon. Member who opened the Debate quoted the figures of the fatal accidents for 1924, and the hon. Member who seconded the Motion did the same. The fatal accidents in connection, as the Mines Department puts it, with falls of ground—we know what that means, I think—in the year 1923 were
586, and the total for 1924 was 604, or a rise of 18. The total fatal accidents were given by the Mover of the Motion as 1,297, and I thought I understood that the number for 1924 was 1,199, or a decrease of 98. As far as the total figures are concerned, they show a decrease, which is to the good, but as far as these falls of ground are concerned, they show an increase, which is bad. These falls of ground are, as we all know, about 50 per cent. of the fatal accidents, and is it possible—and this is a matter on which I should be very glad of any assistance—by regulation to improve them to any extent? Many falls of ground occur at the face, where really it is impossible for there to be supervision. Men are working on their own, and one knows quite well that as a rule in these cases it is the young men amongst whom the most of these casualties occur. As an outsider, so to speak, I am driven to the conclusion that there is not very much in this way one can do by regulation. What saves the man is his experience. Therefore, the older men do not sustain so many accidents.
As to what lessons may be drawn from the question which we have just been discussing to-night, I agree with every word which the hon. Member for Wansbeck Division (Mr. Warne) has said about the necessity for accurate maps. There is no doubt that somehow or other shifting goes on in some unknown workings about which there is no accurate map. There was, however, one thing which interested me more, for in his speech the hon. Member for Wansbeck told us how sometimes barriers were reduced, and an inrush of water possibly followed. Is it not therefore, when many people are talking about the waste of coal by barriers which have been left in the mines—is it not a little dangerous, I say, at the present time to think of reducing those harriers until, at all events, one gets such accurate maps that one can be quite certain there is no water behind? Take another point—and this is the last point that I am going to raise. In a district full of old workings such as this, it does happen where the old disused mine has been full of water that the water runs dry. What happens? Naturally there has been some subsidence, there has been some disturbance of the ground, the water has not evapo
rated, the ground has shifted and the water gone right away and deposited itself in some other old working or centre. It may be a matter of a few yards, it may be a matter of very much more than a few yards. Therefore, it shows how urgent and important it is when you are near old workings of any sort that you should take every precaution in case there is a necessity to save yourselves.
The hon. Gentleman who moved and the hon. Member who seconded the Motion spoke about these borings. I think myself that the Regulations are not very clear on this subject. I think myself that this is a matter which the Secretary-of Mines should very closely look into. If there is no danger of water, I believe you are not obliged to put up these boards. As I tried to point out, if you are near old workings you may think there is no danger at all. Is it, however, not more than likely that there is danger, as this sad accident has proved! I should venture to conclude by following up the suggestion to my right hon. Friend that one lesson to be learned from this accident is to see if he cannot tighten up these Regulations about boring for water. On this side of the House I can assure hon. Members opposite there will be no failing in our desire to do everything we possibly can to safeguard the lives of the miners. I have lived amongst them, and I know, and anyone who knows me will know that I desire to be earnest in this matter. For my part, I can only hope that while such a sad loss of life has taken place, out of this loss may come better safeguards in the future of real benefit to the miners.

Sir JOHN SIMON: I only wish to intervene for three or four minutes, among other reasons because I feel that it is only decent that Members of the House who do not claim to speak with special knowledge on this subject should put aside other engagements—as I have been very willing to do to-night, and I see that the Prime Minister also is present, and I am sure with the same intention—in order that we may really come to the House of Commons to express our concern and our deep regret at this most terrible accident. I myself have a second reason which, perhaps, I may be permitted to state to the House in a sentence. Ever since I was at the Home Office, 10 years ago, at a time when
the Home Office had, amongst other things, the responsibility of administering the Mines Department, I can, I think, claim for myself that I have taken a very close interest, without any very special or expert knowledge, in this terribly important subject. The administration of the Department is now in the hands of a separate Minister, to whom we are most anxious to listen and hear what he has to say to-night. I recall very well how by a previous Government of which I was a member the Act of 1911 was passed. There is no doubt that that Act did, so far as any legislation can do it, effect many very substantial improvements. I do not think anybody disputes that in actual administration and operation it has effected improvements. But there are, to my mind, two very important questions which, perhaps, the Secretary for Mines can deal with in his reply. The first is this: After all, 1911 is now 14 years ago, and a great deal has happened since then. A great deal of accumulated scientific and practical knowledge has been acquired, and it seems, on the face of it, extremely reasonable to take the view that it is high time Parliament took another step forward. The Act of 1911 was based on the Report of the. Royal Commission of some 10 years before. Many of the recommendations of the Royal Commission were unanimous. Whatever may be the controversies in the coal trade, there is no doubt about this, that when it comes to the actual business of trying to devise means of rescue, there is a sympathy which runs through the whole of the coal trade; this, indeed, was borne testimony to in the very moving terms of the hon. Gentleman the Member for the Wansbeck Division.
The second question which arises is this: Legislation on this subject is one thing, and the administration of the law is quite another thing. It is no good legislating in. the most magnificent terms unless we can really be satisfied that the administration of the law is not only what we know it to be in this connection, upright and devoted, but it is adequate and it is sufficiently under control. Take, for instance, this very question which every speaker in turn has dwelt upon in this Debate—the particular danger which arises in our own country owing to the fact that part of the coal areas are riddled with disused
workings. I suppose, though I speak quite without expert knowledge, that coal mining was so early developed in this country—for in some senses we were the pioneers in burrowing in the ground for this purpose—and it has probably made some of our coal areas more riddled by disused workings, many of them very old, than any other country in the world. Could not the Secretary for Mines give us some definite information upon this question? I do not want to read out a category of interrogatories. Nothing is easier. I only want to concentrate, if I might, attention on two or three perfectly limited practical points.
For instance, could he tell us to what extent is the inspection which is organised by the Mines Department an inspection which is really specially concentrated on areas where it is known that there is this very special and grave danger from disused workings and waterlogged sinkings? I think I am right in saying that there are 3,000 coal mines in the kingdom. Would the Secretary for Mines tell us what, on the average, is the number of inspections in a given coal mine in the course of the year? I have got some figures, but I do not wish to put them forward. I should like to know what is the official answer to that, and whether he regards it in the circumstances as adequate. A second question I would like to ask is this. Nothing has been said in the Debate so far suggesting comparisons between the methods followed on the Continent and the methods followed here. I have no doubt it is true that in some respects the British coal miner is better off than his Continental colleague. He is undoubtedly better off in the matter of wages, broadly speaking: but there are a great many people—I think I can give some authority for this—who are rather under the impression that, both in the welfare work at the pithead, and also in the actual operation of inspection and supervision below ground, there are areas on the Continent which, according to modern practice, could exhibit to this country and to the Mines Department an example which ought to be followed.
It is asking too much of a Minister on the Treasury Bench, who always speaks, and of course loyally speaks, for a body of officials who cannot speak for themselves, to criticise his own administration.
or to suggest that it is in any way inadequate; but, without doing that, would the hon. and gallant Gentleman be good enough to tell us what is his own information in the Mines Department as to the comparison between Continental methods, say in Silesia and possibly in the Ruhr, and the methods which in fact are followed here? An hon. Friend of mine who sits on these benches, and who took part in a recent Debate connected with coal, has assured me to-night, and he has since been talking about it with one or two others, that he has the strongest reasons at least for suspecting that, in the Silesian coalfield, and it may also be in the Ruhr coalfield, the methods which are in fact being employed there may be, from the point of view of human safety, methods which are well worth while for the British Department to consider. I think there are probably hon. Members in this House who will remember how, when a unit was called out of the line in France it not infrequently happened, if they found themselves brought back to one of the coal areas of Belgium or France, that the troops themselves were called upon for instance, to wash, and things of that sort, in the pit-head equipment—baths, shower-baths, and so on, at Bethune and places like that. I am perfectly satisfied in my own mind, though of course not from very complete information, that there were cases known to our soldiers in France and Belgium which showed that the pit-head equipment for those things was actually in advance of what is to be found in many collieries in England. I wish to put a practical point to the Secretary for Mines. What is the view which the Department itself takes of a comparison between Continental methods and our own in this all-important matter of the efficiency of inspection?
The last point I want to make is this. It is very easy to heat the air and to be eloquent, or at any rate rhetorical, immediately after a mine disaster. Nothing, I think, has more impressed this House, and I am quite certain nothing will impress the country, more than the dignity and the moderation with which the hon. Gentlemen above the Gangway have dealt with this tragedy to-day. They have not been beating the air. They have been using the language of soberness and restraint, and their argument, if I may 
presume to say so, is the more effective on that account. But do let us for a single moment face the actual broad fact—because I cannot help thinking that it is a broad fact—so familiar to hon. Gentlemen who know this subject so well, but one which many of us do not always carry in our minds. We have had a figure given us to-night of accidents, apart from fatal accidents, in a single year of 211,598; and those are accidents limited to accidents which incapacitated a man for seven days or over There was an answer given in the House on the 12th March last year by Mr. Shin-well, which included a whole table, and I have been studying it. It shows figures which in their mere magnitude are quite appalling. Whatever figure you take for the people engaged in the mining industry, different estimates may be made according to whom you include, but call it between 1,000,000 and 1,200,000. If it is really the case that in this country, under the existing law and its existing administration, you have to face over 200,000 accidents, each incapacitating a man for more than seven days in a single year, you are in the presence of a most terrible thing. The real truth is—and I think there are many hon. Members who will hear me out in this -that before the War a terrible accident like the accident that is in the evening papers to-night, or the accident in the Lowlands of Scotland not so long ago, would really have shaken the country. People would have thought of it at breakfast and in the IA am and in the omnibus possibly for days. I do not say—God forbid—that there is not really a deep and real sympathy with the sufferers in an accident of this sort now, but it is certainly true that since the experiences of the War there is a certain want of sensitiveness in the presence of a disaster, and undoubtedly a habit of shifting your attention from one thing in the evening paper to a quite different thing the next evening, which makes it the more important for the House of Commons to call attention to this subject. It is not a subject, I am sure every body will agree, on which any of us desire to make any particular party claim. It is a thing which touches one of the most important industries of the country. I admit most fully that my own knowledge of the subject is, as the hon. and gallant Member for Hexham (Major Clifton Brown) himself said just now, is
merely A B C, though it is one in which I take a great interest; and I would ask the Secretary for Mines, when he makes his answer, to deal among other things with those two points: first of all, how far is he able to assure us that his inspection is sufficiently frequent and sufficiently concentrated upon the areas that are riddled with old dis-used working; and, secondly, what is the view of the British Mines Department to-day comparing the actual operations of inspection and safeguarding on the Continent with the operations which are relied on under his supervision? If he is able to give the House the assurance that he thinks the time has come for another step forward to be taken, 14 years after the Act of 1911, he will I think do a good deal to reassure the anxieties which are widely felt.

Mr. SMILLIE: My mind carries me back to the terrible explosion which took place in the Blantyre colliery in the year 1877. From that time down to the present I have had more or less personal and close knowledge of nearly every great disaster which has taken place in the mines of this country. I have been engaged in, probably, 30 or 40 inquiries into large and small colliery disasters. I would like to amplify what one of my hon. Friends said, that it is a remarkable thing that every catastrophe which takes place, in which 10, 15 or hundreds of lives are lost—as in the case of the Sengenhydd or Blantyre accidents—produces a wave of sympathy throughout the nation, and right from the Throne down telegrams of sympathy are sent to the relatives of those who are taken away; but the chair rendered vacant by a single accident brings as much suffering and misery into a home as the loss of a life in a great disaster. It is our duty to deal with mining conditions, not merely when a great catastrophe lakes place, but to deal with the ordinary and normal conditions in the mines in order to prevent those disasters. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Spen Valley (Sir John Simon) has stated that the loss of life in mines, and probably in other great disasters, does not seem to shock the nation as it used to do prior to the War. I take it he means we have got so used to slaughter during the War that we are not so easily shocked now. If you take a period of 70 or 90 years in the history of Great Britain prior to the War,
you would find that a larger number were killed and injured in the mines than were killed and injured in all our battles during that time. The slaughter has gone on all the time.
On Friday last we were pleading on behalf of the mining community for a living wage. I hope my right hon. Friend the Secretary for Mines will not make the same statement to-night that he made in his reply on Friday. He said:
I appeal to hon. Members to think very-deeply before they support a scheme which obviously has not been thought out by the hon. Gentlemen who bring it forward. It merely represents a demonstration which they feel hound to make to their supporters."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 27th March, 1925; col. 900, Vol. 182.]
I sincerely hope he will not accuse us of making this demonstration on behalf of safety in the mines in order to please our supporters. We live among those people. We see the ambulance wagon out in our mining districts day after day. More than that, on these benches sit men who, like myself, have their sons employed today in coal mines. Two of my lads are, working every day in a mine, and naturally I want their lives to be as safe as it is possible for legislation to make it. I was one of those who took part in the Accidents in Mines Commission, which gave rise to the latest mining legislation. There I had the opportunity of examining witnesses from all over the country, and of taking part in the framing not merely of the Act itself but of the special rules under the Act, which took up the attention of ibis House for a considerable time. That Act did not go nearly so far as the miners desired to go at the time, or as the three mining representatives on the Commission desired to go.
It need not astonish anyone, and especially it need not astonish the Mines Department, if from time to time there are accidents through inrushes of water. Three years ago a deputation visited the Secretary for Mines to call his attention to the dangers existing in Lanarkshire, where a colliery had been stopped. That colliery had been pumping water for years and years, and draining the surrounding collieries by their pumps, but they found that it cost them so much to pump the water for the whole district that they could not go on any longer, and they had to stop that mine, and leave the
water to rise in it. The other mines had no provision for pumping, and when the water rose in the mine which had been stopped it naturally became a danger to the surrounding mines. In three or four of the surrounding mines the miners became afraid, on account of the accumulation of water in that mine. We called the attention of the Mines Department to this serious danger threatening our people. We stated that in some cases the miners desired to stop work, as they were afraid to go down in the mine. I understand that the Mines Department—after the Redding disaster, arising from a similar cause, waterlogged mines—it was not until after the Redding disaster that we got some attention paid to the matter. I believe the Mines Department finally put themselves in communication with the colliery owners who own the mines about the Hall Side Colliery, the one which has been stopped, and endeavoured to prevail upon them, cooperatively or jointly, to pump the water out of the mine lying at the lowest part of the coalfield, but I understand that agreement could not be secured, and no action has been taken down to the present time.
Had action been taken by the surrounding colliery owners, the cost would have been borne by the mining industry, and a large part of it, would, under the wages agreement under which they work, have fallen upon the miners—87 per cent. of the cost would have come out of the miners' wages. But there are some of us who think that in a matter of this kind it should not be the mine owners or the miners who should bear the cost of unwatering the coalfield in order to provide tens of thousands of pounds for the owner 'of the royalty rents, who should not be called upon to pay a single penny for unwatering the coalfield which he owned. If the unwatering were not done, he would lose the royalty rents, and in a matter of this kind I am sure the Mines Department might very well call on the owner of the royalty rents to bear all, or a share, of the unwatering costs, because he is going to derive special benefit.
The Redding disaster took place after the attention of the Mines Department had been called repeatedly to the state of affairs at Hall Side, in Lanarkshire,
and at Carluke. It was known to everyone that for miles around the Redding Colliery there was a waterlogged area where the coal had been exhausted generations before and where previous inbursts had taken place and lives had been lost. But the Redding disaster came. I had the opportunity of attending the inquiry, and I have not the slightest compunction in saying that I believe that disaster would not have occurred had proper precautions been taken under the Mines Act, even as it stands. This is a rather remarkable thing. We speak about the plans of old collieries being secured in some way. I feel that it is the duty of the Mines Department to call for and get copies of all the old plans of mine workings in this country, and we should have at the Mines Department plans of all the old workings. In the Redding disaster we found that the water came from a waterlogged area that had been worked out many years ago. In this case the colliery company who owned the mine had not the old plans in their possession and were not aware that old plans existed. It was afterwards discovered that there were plans of the old workings, but they were in the office of the Duke of Hamilton, the royalty owner, and they had been there for some 60 or 80 years. They had to be sent for there before the inspector could be made acquainted with any of the old workings. I say that the Mines Department ought to have all the plans that it is possible to get, because that is the place where the technical knowledge is required.
Since that time attention has been called to a mine not far from Glasgow where the workmen threatened to strike because of the fear of an inrush of water. We believe that they had good grounds for that fear. It was admitted that there was an accumulation of water in the rise of the mine. One colliery was stopped and the water rose, and consequently the workmen were afraid. We called the attention of the Mines Department to this matter and they immediately took action, and advised the owners of the colliery not to keep working because of the danger that had arisen. The inspector served notice upon that company in regard to the danger. May I point out that under the Mines Act and its regulations a company is not bound to shut down even when the chief inspector warns them. The owner is entitled to go on
working that colliery and risking the lives of the workmen, and he can claim arbitration on the question whether he is right or the Mines Department.
That was done in this particular case. They went on working the mine and went finally to arbitration against the Mines Department. The party called in to arbitrate knew nothing about mining, and knew no more than a large majority of the Members of this House know about mining. In the end the decision went against the Mines Department, and the mine is still being worked. Would it be too much to ask that when the Mines Department, with its skilled mining engineers and mine inspectors of long experience, make up their minds, after examination and inquiry, that a mine is unsafe for the workpeople, it ought to be stopped pending the appeal being carried to another Court? Surely that is the very least we are entitled to ask for. I have attended over 100 inquiries in the case of mine disasters. In most cases I have been down the collieries after the explosion has taken place, and I feel convinced that in the. vast majority of cases of explosions leading to inquiries which I have attended, that probably legislation and, even, the existing legislation in many cases would have prevented some of those accidents.
I want to appeal to the House upon this question of inspection. This subject has been raised in regard to Germany. Those who care to examine the Report of the Royal Commission which has been mentioned here to-night will find that the three mining members on that Commission put forward a strong plea that we should adopt the French system of workmen's inspection. I am sorry to have to say that for the last 100 years every piece of mining legislation intended for the safety of life has been opposed by the colliery owners. In France the miners can appoint two inspectors from their own ranks, and they devote their whole time to the work in addition to the Government mine inspectors. They are workmen's inspectors and men with an actual knowledge of mining. The workmen appoint those inspectors, and they are responsible to the State and paid by the State, but the colliery owners are called upon to contribute to their wages. I have been told by the French miners' leaders than this system has had
an amazing effect in reducing the accident rate in French mines.
Surely we should not be behind any other country in Europe in this matter. We have probably the most skilled mining engineers to be found in any country. Unfortunately again one is sorry to say that it is not always the highest skilled and most earnest mining engineer manager who has sole charge of the mine, and he is often only the scapegoat to bear the responsibility when anything goes wrong. There is very often an agent placed above him, and the manager is not always free to carry out the many improvements he would like to see. I do not know whether the Secretary for Mines has ever thought this question out. May I point out to him that we are not pleading for our supporters but we are now pleading for the lives of our people. We believe that without any very large increase or addition to the cost of coal the lives of a large -number of our people could be saved. I heard a statement made last night with the authority of the Cabinet that the Government would spare no expense in experimenting on the carbonisation of coal at low temperatures in order to make coal of greater value to the nation. I suppose I may take it that the Government will spare no expense and will probably be willing to spend £100,000, or £200,000 in experiments on the-carbonisation of coal. I ask the Government riot to spare any expense on a much more important thing than that. I want the Government to say that they will spare no expense either by legislation or administration in endeavouring to make the lives of our mining population safer than they are to-day.

The SECRETARY for MINES (Colonel Lane-Fox): I hope the House will forgive me rising rather early. I know a good many other hon. Members would like to speak, but there is a good deal I should like to say and a good many points I want to answer and I hope to be given an opportunity of doing so as fully as possible. I should like, first of all, to repeat what has been said by a good many speakers, how grateful I am sure the whole House is to the hon. Member for Bodmin (Mr. Harrison), who very courteously and considerately stood out of the way and allowed his Motion to be taken off the Paper in order to give the House an opportunity, which I am sure
that they fully welcome, of not only expressing their real and deeply felt sympathy with all the cases of accidents generally which hon. Members have been putting forward, but also with particular reference to the terrible disaster which has only just occurred at Newcastle. I only want to refer in passing to what the hon. Member for Morpeth (Mr. Smillie) mentioned about something I said on Friday. We were dealing on that occasion with a very different subject when I said something about demonstrations. On this occasion I can say without hesitation that we are dealing with a subject on which the whole House is agreed, and we all want to attain the same object. There may be differences about the means of getting it, but we all wish to reduce, as far as we can, the number of accidents, although I think the picture has been painted rather more blackly than was necessary. [Interruption.] I will show what I mean later on. This subject of accidents is the chief and the most important duty of the Department over which I preside. I often think, and have often said that the general British public, the ordinary well-to-do person who puts his coal on the fire, little realises the amount of hardship, suffering and risk which many people have gone through before that coal comes to him or her. Every now and again the public is suddenly shocked when there comes along one of these terrible accidents and then for the first time, a great part of the British public realises what is meant by the conditions of the mining industry, and yet as the hon. Member for Morpeth rightly said, the conditions which are shown in perhaps one aspect by some big accident, are going on all the time, and the miner who is getting the coal for the country is working under conditions of risk involved by fire, water, gas, explosion, the fall of roof, and all, if not in total darkness, under conditions of very inadequate lighting. Surely these conditions deserve our greatest interest and sympathy, and when the public realise what this really means, I only wish their sympathy would be extended still further, and that they would realise that these conditions are the general conditions under which these risks are constantly being run.
10.0 P.M.
I should like to remark on one thing that these terrible accidents bring out in the most remarkable way. To my mind there is nothing more lovable in the miner—and I have a good many mining friends in my part of the world—than their wonderful spirit of comrade ship. There is no time that 10.0 P.M. brings it out more remarkably than these occasions. It is not only the great courage shown by men who often risk their lives. It is wonderful courage which extorts the natural admiration of everyone. But there is another side to it, which is always brought out in a most remarkable way, and that is the way the whole community see that parents, widows and children shall not suffer more than is necessary.

I ought to allude to the particular accident which we are all thinking of, and I wish it was possible to give the House a little more information than I have hitherto given. I am sorry to say that up to now there has been nothing very encouraging to give. It is reported this evening that the water is only rising at the rate of two inches per hour, whereas last evening it was rising at the rate of 18 inches per hour. The pumps are being fixed, and we hope they will be working to-morrow, and that the head water may be reduced. Of course, it is impossible, and no one would wish to attempt it, to apportion any blame at this stage to anybody. In this Debate everyone has very carefully avoided attributing unfairly any blame to anybody up till now. It is interesting and encouraging to know that, as far as we can tell, this is a company which has always taken great care of its people, and also they were under the impression that they were working a virgin area of coal.

In dealing with this question, I agree with all that has been said about the necessity of getting plans, but I wonder how many who have spoken have really considered how they would do it. Since 1872 it has been made compulsory that all plans must be deposited with the Mines Department, or the Home Office as it was then, and that is rigidly carried out. If any case occurs of an old mine being abandoned without plans being deposited we have power to prosecute, and we do
prosecute. If anyone can tell me of any case, I will most certainly have inquiries made and action taken.

Mr. SMILLIE: Your office had no plans of the old workings at the Redding Colliery. The first time the chief inspector saw the plans was at the colliery.

Colonel LANE-FOX: The hon. Member has not understood what I was saying. I said that we had the powers since 1872. In the Redding case, the workings were begun long before 1872.

Mr. SMILLIE: You mean the plans of workings since 1872?

Colonel LANE-FOX: Yes.

Mr. SMILLIE: This in-rush of water came from workings which had been worked out long before.

Colonel LANE-FOX: That is exactly what I said. Plans of workings which were abandoned before 1872 we have no power to demand, and the difficulty is to get them. There are some hon. Members who think you have only to legislate and you get everything. The plan that I propose is to send out an appeal, which was decided upon before this accident occurred, to those who have any plans, to let us have those plans. We have no power of demanding them, and the only chance of getting them is to ask for them. That is the only way I can see that we can get those plans. It is absolutely vital that, as far as we can, we should get them. But, supposing we do get all the plans that can be found, there will still be a very large number of disused workings, of which there can be no plans, and probably never have been.

Mr. D. GRAHAM: There are records of the mines having been worked in every mining county in Britain for hundreds of years past, and there are bound to be plans of these old workings in the possession of the owners of the land at least, as was the case in Redding.

Colonel LANE-FOX: I hope the hon. Gentleman will give me every assistance in the appeal I am making to the public to let us have these plans, and I am sure the general public will do their best to let me have them. For instance, the hon. Member for Wansbeck (Mr. Warne), whose very powerful speech, I am sure,
the House appreciated enormously, mentioned—and it is undoubtedly the fact—that in the neighbourhood of the pit where the disaster has just taken place, there was mining going on in 1649, and I can mention a case of working in 1803. Even the hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. D. Graham) would hardly find me a plan of workings in 1649, or even 1803.

Mr. HARDIE: May I say these plans were deposited in 1803?

Colonel LANE-FOX: The hon. Member evidently knows a great deal more than I do.

Mr. HARDIE: They are in the Library of this House, and I will go out and get them if the hon and gallant Gentleman wants them.

Colonel LANE-FOX: If the hon. Member will give me that assistance, I shall be very glad. I should like to point out that this House sometimes talks rather glibly about legislation. With regard to what the right hon. and learned Member for Spen Valley (Sir J. Simon) said, I would point out that it does not follow, because there has been no legislation, that, therefore, there has been no amendment in the working of the Coal Mines Act, because the Coal Mines Act gives power to the Secretary for Mines, or rather to the Home Office, to amend by Regulations, to amend existing Regulations and to make new Regulations, where necessary. A great deal of that sort of thing has been done, and a good many recent Regulations have been made dealing with most vital points arising out of accidents which have occurred. Therefore, it is not legislation, in many cases, that is necessary. I agree that what is wanted is strenuous and able administration, and that, I maintain, is being done by the officials of the Mines Department. In the effort to reduce accidents, a great deal has been done by research and by public opinion. Accidents are not always due to wickedness on the part of anyone, but are very often due to ignorance, and much can be done by constant research and the publication of results. By that means the Department has done a great deal. In addition, we constantly issue circulars, pamphlets, and literature of all kinds, give advice and, if necessary, instruction, which is,
I think, very often more useful even than passing Acts of Parliament.
As regards inspection, inspectors can do an immense amount. Our present inspectors are an extremely competent, able and excellent body of men, and the warnings and advice which they are able to give in the various pits they inspect are very often of very considerable service, and do often reduce the number of accidents. In addition, of course, there is the possibility of education. A good deal has been done in the way of improving the education of all sections, and, in particular, in carrying on a branch of education which is most desirable, namely, the "safety first" campaign, which the Mines Department is always promoting, and by which, I hope, by degrees, men are being led to realise that, by exercising a little care, a, little less—I will not say carelessness, but a little less, shall we say, recklessness, and a little more care of themselves, comparatively small accidents, which may lead to disastrous consequences, may be avoided. Several hon. Members quoted figures, and I am glad to say that the figures which my officials give me, and which I am certain are correct, do not, at any rate, make the position quite so bad as some people are inclined to make out.

Sir J. SIMON: If the hon. and gallant Gentleman is leaving the question of inspection, would it be possible for him to answer the question I put as to the number of inspections that take place on the average per year?

Colonel LANE-FOX: I have got the point down, but I will give it now.

Mr. G. GRAHAM: Will the hon. and gallant Gentleman be kind enough to give us his views as to the decision of the Court of Arbitration?

Colonel LANE-FOX: I am going to deal with that, but I would rather take it in the order I intended. With regard to the question the right hon. and learned Gentleman put, I should like to couple with it his suggestion that the inspection abroad is more effective that in this country.

Sir J. SIMON: I only said that was an impression.

Colonel LANE-FOX: I think the best test of the efficiency of the inspection we
have is the fact that the figures show that accidents in the mines of this country are considerably lower than in any other country in the world, and of all the European countries, we can show a considerably lower death rate than they can. Therefore, I may take it our death rate shows that our inspection is better. As regards the number of inspections, there are some pits, of course, which are well known to be run on very excellent lines, and, therefore, do not require so much inspection, and, obviously, some pits require a great deal more inspection, but I am assured—and these are very rough figures—that, including all pits, the average number of inspectors' visits paid during the year is something like five, which means that some pits require very little inspection and others a good deal more. I should now like to deal more closely with the trouble of water, which is at the moment more particularly before our minds in view of the disaster at Scotswood. This trouble is serious—

Lieut. - Colonel WATTS - MORGAN: Does the figure which the hon. and gallant Gentleman has just given in regard to inspections mean that the whole of the pit is examined each time?

Colonel LANE-FOX: I cannot say anything about the details of the inspectors' visits. The inspector may go to one part or another of the mine, but I cannot say that he necessarily goes into every corner of the pit. I cannot give any assurance as to that; I must leave it to the inspector to do what he thinks is necessary in each case.

Lieut.-Colonel WATTS-MORGAN: I only want to make it clear that he may only go to one district out of 12 in one given pit.

Colonel LANE-FOX: I should like to go into this question of the water danger, because there is no doubt that it is one of the most, if not the most, serious of all the troubles with which the mining industry has to deal at the present time. It is quite obvious that, as mining goes on, this danger is liable to increase. As the number of disused workings increases, so there arise more opportunities for danger of this kind. Several hon. Members have asked what the inspectors are doing in regard to it, but I would
point out that this is a particular difficult matter for the inspectors to deal with, because they cannot have local geographical knowledge of every pit. What they can do is to go down and attack any particular abuses that may be going on, or any breach of the regulations, but, as regards knowing the exact history of the whole of the workings in a pit, that is not a matter that can be easily dealt with by the inspectors.
The recent case of the Blackhill colliery illustrates the difficulty under which the Department is working. At the Blackhill colliery the divisional inspector reported that there was danger, and he was so much impressed by it that he served a notice under Section 99 of the Act, requiring that all the men should be withdrawn. This the management considered was not necessary, and the case went before the arbitration court. As the hon. Member for Morpeth has just told us, the decision was given against the inspector and against the Mines Department, and we not only had to pay the costs, but were told also that the case was one which ought never to have been brought. I do not agree with the hon. Member for Morpeth as to the Judge being necessarily a man who knew nothing about mining, because he was a man who had the power of weighing evidence, the evidence was brought before him by both sides, and I would say that it was perfectly possible that he may have been right and the inspector wrong, though I do not express any opinion as to that. At any rate, a legal decision was given, and it was given against us, and nothing more was done. If, however, the charge is made against the Department that sufficient action is not being taken, I can give that, at any rate, as one piece of evidence that, so far from the inspectors not doing enough, in that case the inspector was held, according to law, to have done a great deal more than he need have done.
Let me now come to the other case which was mentioned by the hon. Member for Morpeth, and it is one that gave us a great deal of trouble—I mean one case of the Hallside Colliery, in Scotland. Before I left the Department at the close of my previous tenure of office, I myself paid a visit to that area in order to get to know the lie of the land and consult the people on the spot, and I am sorry
that during the past year the matter has not got any further forward. The hon. Gentleman, however, was perfectly correct in the account that he gave of the proceedings that were taken. We did try to get the owners to agree to a scheme, and when they objected, and the Black-hill case arose, it was obviously not of very much use for us to go forward in another case in which there was considerable doubt as to whether there really was danger or not. In such a case it would have been very unwise, and possibly disastrous, to go forward and again be stopped by a legal decision of this kind.

Mr. D. GRAHAM: The same manager as at Blackhill, and the same company.

Colonel LANE-FOX: That has nothing to do with it.

Mr. GRAHAM: It has a lot to do with it.

Colonel LANE-FOX: The point I am trying to make is that it is far better that we should try to make an arrangement with these gentlemen, who are now, I hope, likely to meet as to a very considerable extent. I do not like to say too much about it now, but I hope that in the near future a satisfactory arrangement, or as satisfactory an arrangement as we can get, may be arrived at, by which this danger may be, if not absolutely taken away, at any rate very much minimised.
I think one of the last things I did before I left office was to set up a committee to deal with the question of water dangers. Here again, I would point out that the setting up of a committee does not mean that nothing has be-en clone. It is necessary in a case like- this to really get to know all the details of the very intricate problems with which you are dealing. The problems vary in every case. The Committee have been working extremely well and extremely conscientiously. Thy have travelled over a good many water-logged areas, and have succeeded in getting satisfactory arrangements made in a good many districts, by the advice they have given and the knowledge which they have. Among other districts which they have visited is the Cambuslang district, which is the only one in which they have not succeeded in getting a settlement arrived at. They have carried on a general inquiry, and
they have been getting valuable expert advice, and I hope that before long, in view of the accumulated knowledge which they have acquired, we shall have a clear line on which we can legislate, if we consider legislation necessary.
The Section of the Coal Mines Act, 1911, which deals with this matter is not, per haps, an absolutely satisfactory one, and when the Committee reports, we shall have to consider whether or not this Section requires Amendment. This is one of the cases in which I think it is possible that some amendment of the Coal Mines Act may be necessary. The Section provides that
Where any working has approached within 40 yards of a place containing or likely to contain an accumulation of water or other liquid matter, or of disused workings (not being workings which have been examined and found to be free from accumulations of water or other liquid matter) the working shall not exceed eight feet in width, and there shall be constantly kept extending to a sufficient distance, not being less than five yards, in advance, at least one bore-hole near the centre of the working, and sufficient flank bore-holes on each side at intervals of not more than five yards.
In view of the difficulties that have recently been met with, it is a question for consideration whether or not that Section ought to be extended, and whether in view of the fact that it has been clearly proved that on several occasions disused workings have existed without being known whether that method ought not to be made compulsory in every case or, at any rate, in very many more cases.
I should like to illustrate the danger of hon. Members making suggestions that the Mines Act should be amended. An illustration given by the hon. Member for the Bother Valley (Mr. Grundy) showed that he had not acquainted himself with the legislation which he was criticising. He dealt with a case in a certain pit where a rope broke and the train broke away and there was a very serious accident. He said it was an old rope and that there ought to be legislation on the matter.

Mr. GRUNDY: I said that there was no provision as to the life of a rope of that class, and that it appeared that these ropes could be used until they broke. I did not say whether it was an old or a new rope.

Colonel LANE-FOX: I am sorry if I misunderstood the hon. Member. He now says there is no specified life for a rope, and he suggested that there should be legislation setting forth the life that a rope ought to have. The present Coal Mines Act provides that every rope has to be examined once a week, and that particular rope had been examined, I think, every day.

Mr. D. GRENFELL: What is suggested is done in the case of the winding ropes.

Colonel LANE-FOX: Is it not far better to have regular inspection of ropes? If you establish a particular life, it is suggested that the rope may be used for 10 years or 15 years, or whatever the period of life suggested may be. The effect is, that during that period no particular care is taken.[HON. MEMBERS: "No!"]I If you demand, for the purposes of security, that there shall be a constant daily or weekly inspection, you are much more likely to secure safety than by merely establishing some period of time for the life of the rope.

Mr. HARTSHORN: Is not the hon. and gallant Gentleman aware that, in the case of winding ropes, you have both a daily examination and a time limit for the life of the rope?

Colonel LANE-FOX: May I point out to the right hon. Gentleman that depending on a period is no safeguard, if you can ascertain by careful and definite examination the condition of the rope. I would like now to indicate some of the activities of my Department. From some of the suggestions made, it would appear that the Department is doing nothing, and that because it has not brought in some big Bill nothing happens. I would like to suggest one or two forms of activity which are to its credit. I do not say that they have all been done by myself—I have only recently returned to it. Some of the things of which I speak were done by my predecessor. One of the topics that have been referred to is inspection, and already the suggestions made have been carried out to a large extent, and I give full credit to my predecessor in my Department for what he has done. Between us, at any rate, these things have been carried out. Two new divisional inspectorates have been created, one in South Wales, which has
been divided into two, and the other in the Yorkshire district. In addition, nine sub-inspectors under the Coal Mines Act and one new sub-inspector under the Metalliferous Mines Act have been appointed. In addition, a temporary medical officer has been appointed to go round and report and advise on first aid and ambulance work. I think that the work which he has done has been much appreciated and will be of considerable value.
In addition, there are many matters in which legislation is not necessary, and far more can be done by Regulations. Several Regulations have been amended in a way that will be of considerable importance and value in the future as a means of preventing accidents. The Regulation relating to shot-firing has been amended. I cannot quite remember whether I actually brought this Regulation forward, but I can certainly claim to be its parent, for one of the things on which I spent most time during my previous tenure of office was the elaborating of this Regulation. The Regulation secures that the qualifications of shot-firers, as regards age and experience, and so on, shall be increased, that there shall be a definite examination for gas before a shot is fired, that no shots be fired within 20 yards of an inaccessible break or cavity, that stone dust should be carried right up to the coal face before the shot is fired, and that two shots should not be fired together. That amendment dealt with cases which had arisen in several disastrous accidents that occurred inst before or just after I previously came into office, and I think the change will be of considerable value.
We have had an amendment of the stone dust Regulation, and here again I can claim to have had a great part in the introduction of that Amendment. It abolished the qualification of being wet throughout. That was obviously a most unsatisfactory qualification. The provision made is that there shall be tests taken of the coal dust in every colliery, whether it be dry or wet, and only on the result of those tests shall it be decided what course is to be taken. Those tests are to be taken not only generally, but specifically from the roof, floor and sides respectively. Also a record has to be kept in each mine of the results of periodical tests of coal dust. There has
been a Committee set up to deal with mining explosives, a Committee to test and improve explosives. On their advice explosives from this country were sent to the United States, because it had been suggested that our tests were not as severe as those in the States and that our explosives were not as safe. As a result of that experiment it was found that our explosives stood the test better than those in the States, and, on the whole, it was proved that our explosives were safer and our tests as complete as, or more complete, than those of the United States. Everybody knows that larger numbers of accidents are clue to the falls of roofs and sides. As regards timbering and supports a Committee was set up, and that Committee has already traversed a great part of the United Kingdom. It has reported on South Wales, and is now preparing a Report on Scotland. As regards research we have held investigations into coal dust explosions, fire-damp explosions, spontaneous combustion, electrical failures, and so on, and arrangements are being made for a new station which will be more central and, therefore, of more value to the mining community as a whole.
Before I sit down I must refer to a point which I omitted from the earlier part of my speech. I said that hon. Members opposite had painted the accident picture rather more blackly than it need be painted. The hon. Members for Rother Valley talked about growing mortality. I am glad to say it is not quite so had as that. I admit the figures are far higher than anyone wishes to see them. Nobody wishes to see them maintained at anything like as high a level as they are at now, but it is satisfactory to know that we are in a better position apparently than any other country in the world, and it is more satisfactory still to realise that the figures which hon. Members have quoted about last year are not, as I am informed, accurate. The figures of last year as regards fatal accidents, and still more so as regards the less serious accidents, are better than they were in the year previous. The figure of fatal accidents for the year 1922 was 1,105. For 1923 it was 1,297, and for 1924 it went back to 1,199. If we take all the figures over a long period of years we find there has been a slow but steady decrease. I come to the minor accidents. There I wish to point out that there is now a difference in the manner of calculation
which makes the figures which I am about to give oven better than they appear to be at first sight. The minor non-fatal accidents for 1923 numbered 212,256, which is indeed an appalling figure.

Mr. BATEY: Those figures differ from the figures given by the hon. and gallant Gentleman in answer to a question.

Colonel LANE-FOX: I am not conscious of any difference in the figures, but these are the figures which are given up to date.

Mr. BATEY: I took my figures from the printed list given in the form of an answer in this House, and it shows the Lumber of accidents for 1922 to be 211,598.

Mr. WESTWOOD: And those are the figures given by the hon. and gallant Gentleman to me in an official answer.

Colonel LANE-FOX: I will have that matter investigated. As a matter of fact, the difference is a very small one, but if the figures are incorrect I will have the matter looked into. What is the figure given by the hon. Member for Spennymoor (Mr. Batey)?

Mr. BATEY: The number of non-fatal accidents for 1923 was, according to that answer, 211,598.

Colonel LANE-FOX: My figure is bigger.

Mr. BATEY: Yes, but the figure I have quoted was given also by the hon. and gallant Gentleman.

Colonel LANE-FOX: I only wish hon. Members to see that I am not trying to ender-state the ease. Let me give the figures I have here. They show that the number of non-fatal accidents in 1923 was 212,256 and in 1924 the figure was 195,423. Since 1924 these figures include accidents which have caused a man to be off work for anything over three days. That, I think, is a very good alteration. Formerly the figures referred only to accidents which kept a man off work for seven days or over and the new figures will therefore be still more striking.

Mr. BATEY: There are far more men idle now than there were in 1923.

Colonel LANE-FOX: I am only pointing out that under the new system if a man is injured in the course of his occu
pation and the injury keeps him off work for three days he is qualified to go into this list. Previously, a man had to be off work for over seven days before being included, and therefore the figures are even more reassuring than they appear at first.

Mr. R. RICHARDSON: The point was that there were not so many people working during 1924 as during 1923.

Colonel LANE-FOX: We are bound to take one year with another, and I have taken the whole of the year 1924, and I do not think the proportion of unemployment makes a considerable difference to what, I hope, will be welcomed by hon. Members opposite. This is not a party case, and I think it is very satisfactory that there has been some improvement. I should like to say, in conclusion, that I always welcome any suggestions which any hon. Member opposite may make, and if at any time they have any to make as to improvements in Regulations, or anything which would prevent accidents or generally improve the position, I am always most glad to receive any suggestions of that kind. They know quite well that if they come to my room in the House of Commons or to my office, I am always glad to talk to them and to hear what they have to say. After all, in many cases there is political trouble, and there are difficulties about the coal industry on which we cannot agree, but on this matter we can all most cordially agree. I am certain that the whole House is united in wanting to do its utmost to reduce this deplorable list of accidents, and I am glad to think that it is not increasing, but that, on the whole, it tends to decrease, and anything that this House can do, or that any Member of it can do, to cause that tendency to continue, I am sure we shall always be most ready to do.

Mr. J. RAMSAY MacDONALD: I do not intend to detain the House for many minutes, but I think that a sentence or two must be spoken and a comment or two made on the speech to which we have just listened. The hon. and gallant Gentleman the Secretary for Mines was, I think, perfectly justified when he said, towards the end of his speech, that his door downstairs or at his office elsewhere is always open to hon. Members of this House or to other interested parties who desire to consult him on matters relating
to the mining industry. Our experience of him has certainly borne out that claim on his part. It is perfectly true that this Debate has been raised under the shadow of the deplorable misfortune that has happened in Newcastle, but I think the figures that have been published from time to time about fatal accidents and non-fatal accidents ought to have been a warning to us, quits apart from any of these dramatic events that move our hearts, as our hearts have been moved today and yesterday. I am not quite sure what the right hon. Gentleman meant when he said that the figures, for instance, of fatal accidents showed an improvement. I do not find that in the figures which he gave, and which are published in the OFFICIAL REPORT of 24th February this year—I have them here—from 1900 down to 1924. Of course, you get annual variations, a variation from 1,201 in 1918, say, to 1,089 next year, to 1,060 the next, and so on, but then in 1923 you get 1,151.

Colonel LANE-FOX: I think the right hon. Gentleman forgets that the number of those working in the pits is steadily increasing.

Mr. MacDONALD: I am not quite sure of that. It is true that there have been increases in certain of those years, but am certain that, if he would work them out mathematically, he would find that the result would not be very materially to alter the face value of those figures. There may be just a slight percentage of alteration, but, taking them as a whole, let us put the most favourable view we like upon these figures, they are certainly not satisfactory. Nobody can say—and I am sure the right hon. Gentleman opposite will not say—that they are satisfactory.
In 1924 there were 1,127 fatal accidents. In 1923 there were. 1,151. In 1922, 1,026; and so on. That is fatal accidents. Non fatal accidents bear out exactly the same thing. I asked that certain figures should be made out, and this is the form in which I had them given to me. Take the two years 1919–20. The average for these two years is 117,000 non-fatal accidents. Take 1922–23 together, and the average is 200,000 non-fatal accidents, an annual average increase of 83,000 non-fatal accidents. Working it out in another form, it means that one in six employed above
and below ground at the mines suffered injury. It is simply terrible. Supposing hon. Members who are here to-night considered that before the 1st of April of next year one out of every six would have met with an accident serious enough to keep us away from work for seven days. [An HON. MEMBER: "Seven years in some cases!"] It varies between that and a fatal accident. It hardly requires a dramatic representation of what all this means to move an assembly like this. These figures are published month by month. I do not at all object to the right hon. Gentleman taking the opportunity for a sort of general survey of the work of this Department on an occasion like this. I think he is quite right. He did it in self defence. It is the sort of speech that we would have expected if his salary had been under discussion. But a general survey like this ought never to obscure this specific point of accidents in the mines. That is why really I bring the House back to a sense of its responsibility. These are the figures which the right hon. Gentleman quoted. What are we to make of these figures? I do not know. I am not prepared with any explanation. Has the right hon. Gentleman inquired into and investigated concurrent circumstances? For instance, has he investigated what effect the seven-hour day has had on accidents? I am not sure that the figures I have got out will bear absolute scrutiny, but it almost looks as though when the seven-hour day was instituted the accident risk went down to a rate equivalent to something like 30,000 to 40,000 accidents per annum. That is one very important point. Is his Department working out the explanation of accidents in that way?
I will make another suggestion to him. I hope hon. Members will not make me put more emphasis upon what I am going to say than is necessary, but there is a good deal of ground for believing, by an examination of those figures, alongside of an examination of wages figures, that the curve of increasing wages and the curve of arrested or diminishing accidents coincide. Is not the Department working out those sort of problems? Again, I am told that one of the reasons why the accidents in 1919–1920 kept down was that the miners in those years were having pretty good wages, were going fresh and active, and muscularly and mentally fit, to their work, well nourished in body and
well nourished in nerve, so that they went to the pit as first-rate craftsmen, whose risks to accidents were reduced to a minimum, not on account of legislation, but on account of their own internal capacity to look after themselves. Whereas in 1922–23, when the average rose from 117,000 to 200,000, an increase of 83,000, wages had been reduced by at least 30s. a week; and also at that time, in 1922–1923, not only when the reduction had taken place, but when the accidents were increasing at the greatest ratio, miners had been longest subject to a seduction of wages. So that the assumption is that the miner went to his work imperfectly nourished, and not perhaps sufficiently calm in his mind, having more worries to disturb him than he had before when times were brighter and more prosperous with him.
Those are the problems which the Government Department should work out. I remember how in 1906 when I was a much younger Member of this House than unfortunately I am now, we used to bother the Home Secretary of the day to work out factory accidents from their psychological point of view and their psychological bearing. That has been done very largely owing to the pressure which a group of us in the House put on the Department in 1906, and owing to our having kept pegging away at this phase of the problem. We have got some most interesting, and in some respects somewhat elaborate, reports upon the psychological causes of accidents in factories. I hope the same thing is being done in respect of mines. I do not believe the inspection is adequate. The individual inspector, I believe, is a most efficient person, but I do not think his staff is adequate to fulfil the responsibilities. I do not think the regulations are quite as good as they might be, and one of the disappointing things in the speech of my right hon. Friend the Secretary for Mines is that he does not seem quite to have made up his mind about legislation; he told us there might be some legislation—he was not sure. Surely, he ought to be sure. Since 1911 there have been scores of committees and inquiries into mining conditions, explosives and explosions, and all sorts of things. Does my right hon. Friend mean to tell me that, as a residuum from those com
mittees and inquiries, he has not discovered a very great necessity for the alteration of mining legislation in some important respects? I know his predecessor thought, in view of the experience gained since the 1911 Act, there was enough to justify this House in spending some time in amending it and bringing it up to date. The plea I really do put in is this: As my hon. Friend the Member for Morpeth (Mr. Smillie) quite truly said, when we have these terrible accidents like that which occurred on Monday, we get into a state of interest and excitement, our hearts get softened and our desires are very eloquent and very sincere but as the days go by we go back again into the old rut, and nothing is done. Therefore, I do beg my right hon. Friend and the House as well to realise that these monthly figures of accidents in mines, fatal and non-fatal, impose upon the House a responsibility which it cannot fulfil unless it steadily works away at the whole question of the causes of accidents and produces legislation, administration, staffs, or whatever is necessary in order to increase the security of our miners' lives.

Question put, and ageed to.

Resolved,
That this House deplores the heavy loss of life and the large number of non-fatal accidents in mines, and is of opinion that every possible step should be taken without delay, whether by legislation or otherwise, in order to secure the fullest protection possible to those engaged in this dangerous industry.

Orders of the Day — FORESTRY BILL.

Postponed Proceeding resumed on Question, "That the Bill be now read a Second Time."

Question again proposed.

It being after Eleven of the Clock, the Debate stood adjourned.

Debate to be resumed To-morrow.

Orders of the Day — ARMY AND AIR FORCE (ANNUAL) BILL.

Read a Second time.

Bill committed to a Committee of the Whole House for To-morrow.—[Commander Eyres Monsell.]

Orders of the Day — BOARD OF EDUCATION SCHEME (WINCHESTER, CHRIST'S HOSPITAL SCHOOL FOUNDATION) CONFIRMATION BILL.

Considered in Committee, and reported, without Amendment; read the Third time, and passed.

Orders of the Day — HOUSING BILL [Lords].

Read a Second time.

Bill committed to a Committee of the Whole House for To-morrow.[Commander Eyres Monsell.]

Orders of the Day — HOUSING (SCOTLAND) BILL [Lords].

Read a Second time.

Bill committed to a Committee of the Whole House for To-morrow.—[Commander Eyres Monsell.]

Orders of the Day — TOWN PLANNING BILL [Lords].

Read a Second time.

Bill committed to a Committee of the Whole House for To-morrow.—[Commander Eyres Monsell.]

Orders of the Day — TOWN PLANNING (SCOTLAND) BILL [Lords].

Read a Second time.

Bill committed to a Committee of the Whole House for To-morrow.—[Commander Eyres Monsell.]

Orders of the Day — IMPERIAL INSTITUTE [MONEY].

Resolution reported,
That it is expedient, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session, to amend the law with respect to the management of the Imperial, Institute, to authorise the payment, out of the moneys provided by Parliament: 
(1) in each year during the five years after the commencement of the Act, of a sum of nine thousand pounds towards the expenses of the Imperial Institute and thereafter of such sum, if any, as Parliament may determine; and
1270
(2) of such additional sum, if any, towards the maintenance of exhibition galleries as Parliament may determine."

The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.

Orders of the Day — HOUSING CONDITIONS, WEST HAM.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Commander Eyres Monsell.]

Mr. GROVES: I should like to repeat at greater length the point I have submitted to the Minister of Health at Question Time and on many occasions. I refer specially, of course, to the condition of housing within the County Borough of West Ham. In our borough we have about 49,000 houses. We have a very up-to-date sanitary department, guided by our very able medical officer, and we have about 12 sanitary inspectors, and in the course of a year they can cover about 10,000 houses. It would take approximately five years to deal in the ordinary way with insanitary houses in our borough. I am sure the Minister and the House will be surprised when I tell them that I have analysed the past four years and the average number of inspections in those years was 10,933, and it was decided by our sanitary inspector that 8,654 houses were not in all respects reasonably fit for human habitation. In 1923 when I attended Standing Committee A and the Rent Restriction Bill, introduced and piloted by the present Attorney-General, was before us, I and my right hon. Friend the Member for Shettleston (Mr. Wheatley) were responsible for getting the Attorney-General to accept an Amendment The point we put was that the onus and responsibility then was on the tenant to go to the County Court Judge and produce a certificate from the sanitary authority that his house was not in all respects fit for human habitation and claim the right to the non-payment of the 25 per cent. increase in rent. We submitted that that power was not commensurate with the needs of the area. The Attorney-General saw the point quite well and put through an Amendment which made it open for the local authority to go to Court on behalf of the tenant. We were pleased with that and I noted
what the Under-Secretary for Health said to-day, that he was sure the public generally were aware of their powers under this Clause. I wonder whether he will be surprised to know that for the past four years only 30 persons in West Ham have been able to take advantage of that Clause, proving again, as I proved to the Attorney-General, that that power is not quite what the people want, the reason being that a man is usually at work and the wife is busy at home with domestic work, and, in addition, working people do not like attending at the Court.
I am sure the right hon. Gentleman understands that my few words are not words of carping criticism. I believe my idea is a practical one and will assist him in the point of view of constructively dealing with insanitary property. The special point I want to urge on his is this. Because people do not feel disposed to go to Court they should get the help of a civic administrative authority. We are willing to do all we can. We are circumscribed because of the circumstances under which we are compelled to operate. It is within the power of the Minister to get an Order-in-Council to deal with the owners of insanitary property. They ought to be compelled by law to provide for people a commodity just as much as purveyors of meat or bread can be dealt with by rules and regulations of public health. In my borough in 1924, 8,500 notices were delivered upon the owners of houses that they were not in all respects reasonably fit for human habitation. If you assume that only 75 per cent. of these owners are charging the full 40 per cent. increase, and assume a 10s. pre-War standard rent, it tells you that 6,375 owners are getting 2s. 6d. per week from the tenants that they are not permitted to draw by the law of the land. If you work that out it comes to nearly £32,000 per year. The point I want to put to the Minister for his consideration at some future date is that he could get the order to which I have previously referred, make a Proclamation dealing with West Ham first, calling upon the owners within a period of six months to put their property in a sanitary condition, give them six months' fair trial, and if they do not then comply with the Regulations of the local sanitary department, take it for granted your public notice serves the re
quirement of the usual notice, and then have these landlords taken to court.
I thank the House for listening to me, and I trust the Minister will accept my remarks in the spirit in which I make them. I ask him to give serious consideration to the housing conditions in this borough, which is the seventh largest in the country. The borough is crowded; in one room we find as many as eleven people living, and we cannot build houses for them because there is no land available in the borough. We cannot afford to build houses outside the borough because our rates are so high that we could not bear the incidence of the necessary financial adjustments. I am sure the Minister is as desirous as I am of getting houses for the people. I want him to feel that my suggestions are constructive and that it is my desire to be helpful. I ask him to give consideration to the point which I am putting, and I hope the Government will take a bold stride forward and brine pressure to bear on owners of slum property so that justice may be done to the common people of my borough.

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of HEALTH (Sir Kingsley Wood): I am sure the House generally appreciates the motive and the tone of the hon. Member and the manner in which he has just spoken, and, speaking for my Department, I am sure we will give fair consideration to any proposal which he makes to help us to solve the many difficulties which are confronting us at the present time in connection with the housing problem. We appreciate particularly the difficulties of a neighbourhood like West Ham. West Ham is practically a built-up borough, and I think it can be said that, speaking generally, the only method by which West Ham can do anything to solve the problem is by dealing with the insanitary houses to which the hon. Gentleman has referred. I want him to appreciate, as I know he will, the efforts that have already been made. I did not follow all his figures with regard to the inspections that have already taken place in the neighbourhood, but I obtained exact information as to what happened in one year as far as inspections in West Ham are concerned. I find that the latest information is that in West Ham 11,207 inspections were made in
one year—probably between one-fourth and one-fifth of the houses in the borough. I am glad that, as a consequence of those inspections, repairs were carried out by owners in respect of no fewer than 9,069 houses. We would, of course, gladly see more done, but that, at any rate, shows that something is being done in this connection. Speaking of the whole country, I may tell the hon. Member, as showing the efforts that are being made in this connection, that in one year notices were served throughout the whole country, in respect of 265,548 houses, and defectswereactually remedied in no fewer than 246,787. The hon. Member will, therefore, see that we are not neglecting at the Ministry of Health that important side of our work. He will understand that we are hampered by difficulties in connection with labour, but we are always keeping before us the necessity of bringing, if we can, a large number of these unsatisfactory houses into a better condition, and we shall continue to follow that policy. With regard to the proposal which the hon. Member has made, I do not want him to think I am unduly criticising it, or that we do not welcome any suggestion, especially from one who is so sincere and anxious to help us as he is. But what he is proposing is that instead of the local authority serving each landlord with a notice of defect in respect of the particular property which is to be the subject of the survey, some form of public declaration or announcement should be made. I anticipate that he would like the local authority to issue a public announcement exhibited, say, on the church doors or at the town hall to the landlords of, say, West Ham that they must put their houses in order. He will at once see the difficulties of that. In the Schedule to every one of these notices that the local authority serves the defects which have to be remedied must be specified. I think it will be seen at once that it would be impossible by means of a general proclamation dealing, say, with some 11,000 houses, to specify all that would be necessary and desirable in connection with each house. That is why I told the hon. Gentleman to-day, not in any carping spirit but because we have to do justice all the way round that it would be impossible to deal with specific defects by means of a general public notice. He indicated that this might also be done
by means of an Order in Council. I am afraid that the Minister of Health has no such power. All these matters are laid down by Act of Parliament. What steps the Minister has to take and what steps the local authorities have to take are at the present time all regulated to the very last degree by Statute. So it would be impossible for the Ministry of Health by Order in Council to say to-morrow that all the landlords, for instance, of West Ham must obey some public declaration affixed to a church door, and that if it is not obeyed within six months those landlords would be liable to be brought before the West Ham Police Court in respect of the defects in their houses. I wish we could do it so quickly and simply as the hon. Member has indicated.
I am afraid we must pursue the remedy so far as we can of serving these notices and getting the landlords to put their houses in order by the method I have indicated. I am glad to think that, as I have shown, by the figures in a large number of cases, in fact some 80 or 90 per cent., when the notice has been served no further proceedings have been necessary. In a small number it has been necessary to take the landlord into Court, but by the service of the notice a great deal has been effected. I can, however, promise that we will pursue, so far as we are able and labour difficulties allow, what is, I think, a very important part of the problem of remedying the housing shortage at the present time. It is a very painful and difficult thing to get new houses erected, and, therefore, we must turn our attention to every side of the problem. I certainly agree with the hon. Member, and he can rely upon the Ministry of Health pursuing the policy of endeavouring to get as many of these defective houses remedied and repaired as quickly as possible, and I thank him for bringing the matter before the notice of the House to-night. I can assure the hon. Member that we do our best in the difficult circumstances that confront us to pursue this policy, and any suggestion which the hon. Member, or any other hon. Member, can make, will be gratefully received by the Department and considered, with a view to dealing with the housing shortage as speedily as possible.

Adjourned accordingly at Twenty one Minutes after Eleven o'Clock.